archive.org · THEPOHLE-PREUSSSERIESOFDOG MATICTEXT-BOOKS 1.God:HisKnowability,EssenceandAt...

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

THE POHLE-PREUSS SERIES OF DOGMATIC TEXT-BOOKS

1. God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes, vi & 479 pp., $2.00 net.

2. The Divine Trinity, iv & 297 pp., $1.50

net.

3. God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, v & 365 pp., $1.75 net.

4. Christology. iii & 310 pp., $1.50 net.

5. Soteriology.

6. Mariology. (In Press.)

OTHER VOLUMES TO FOLLOW IN COURSE OF TIME :

7. Grace: Actual and Habitual.

8. The Sacraments in General.

Baptism. Confirmation.

9. The Holy Eucharist.

10. The Sacrament of Penance.

11. Extreme Unction. Holy Orders. Matrimony.

12. Eschatology.

& ii. 3 "

Mau, fjl

SOTERIOLOGY

A DOGMATIC TREATISE ON THEREDEMPTION

BY

THE REVEREND JOSEPH POHLE, PH.D., D.D.

FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY IN THECATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, NOW PROFESSOR OF

DOGMA IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BRESLAU

AUTHORIZED ENGLISH VERSION, BASED ON THE FIFTHGERMAN EDITION, WITH SOME ABRIDGEMENT

AND ADDED REFERENCES

BY

ARTHUR PREUSS

ST. LOUIS, MO., 1914

PUBLISHED BY B. HERDER

17 SOUTH BROADWAY

FREIBURG (BADEN)GERMANY

LONDON, W. C.

68, GREAT RUSSELL STR.

!MAY 2 1 1943

NIHIL OBSTAT.

Sti. Ludovici, die 25. Sept., 1913.

F. Q. HOLWECK,Censor Librorum.

IMPRIMATUR.

Sti. LuJovici, die 26. Sept., 1913.

fJOANNES J. GLENNON,

Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici.

Copyright, 1913,

by

JOSEPH GUMMERSBACH.

All rights reserved.

BECKTOLDPRINTING AND BOOK MFG. CO.

ST. LOUIS, MO.

TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE

INTRODUCTION i

PART I. THE WORK OF REDEMPTION 3 if

Prefatory Remarks 3

CH. I. Christ s Mediatorship as a Condition of Our Re- 5

demption 5

i. The Possibility of the Redemption 5

2. Congruity and Necessity of the Redemption . 13

3. Predestination of the Redeemer 24

CH. II. The Redemption of the Human Race ThroughChrist s Vicarious Atonement 35

i. The Reality of Christ s Vicarious Atonement . . 35

ART. i. Vicarious Atonement Defined .... 35

ART. 2. The Dogma of Christ s Vicarious Atone

ment Proved From Revelation 41

2. The Properties of Christ s Vicarious Atonement 60

ART. i. Intrinsic Perfection of the Atonement . 60

ART. 2. Extrinsic Perfection or Universality of the

Atonement 75

3. The Concrete Realization of Christ s Vicarious

Atonement 84

ART. i. Christ s Death on the Cross 85

ART. 2. Christ s Descent Into Hell 91

ART. 3. The Resurrection 101

PART II. THE THREE OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER . . . .no SCH. I. Christ s Priesthood in

i. Christ s Death a True Sacrifice in2. Christ a True Priest 127

CH. II. Christ s Prophetical Office 140

CH. III. Christ s Kingship 149

INTRODUCTION

Christology deals with the Person of our Di

vine Redeemer; Soteriology (*& rf* <TOTW Aoyos)

considers the object for which He came into this

world. This object was the Redemption of the

human race.

Christ became our Redeemer or Mediator

solely by His vicarious atonement, therefore, re

demption (mediation) and vicarious atonement

are interchangeable terms.

The fallen race of Adam was not simply re

stored as a whole to its original state of bliss. In

order to share in the graces of the Redemptioneach individual human being must co-operate

with the Redeemer. To be able to do this manneeds ( i ) a teacher, who authoritatively instructs

him in the truths necessary for salvation; (2) a

priest who effectively applies to him the merits of

the atonement; and (3) a king or shepherd, who,

by the promulgation of suitable laws and pre

cepts, guides him on the way to Heaven.

Hence our Divine Lord exercises a threefold

function or office, namely (i) that of Teacher,

(2) that of High Priest, and (3) that of King1

/

,P

2 INTRODUCTION

or Shepherd. Cfr. John XIV, 6: "I am the

way (King), and the truth (Teacher), and the

life (Priest)."

Soteriology, therefore, naturally falls into two

main divisions: I. The Work of Redemption;II. The Three Offices of the Redeemer e

PART I

THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

PREFATORY REMARKS

The Redemption could not have been effected

by a mediator who was either mere God or mere

man. It required one who was both God and

man. Christ, alone, being both God and man,was in a position to act as natural and moral

mediator and to reconcile the human race to its

Creator.

We have shown in a previous treatise that

Christology1

is founded on the doctrine of the

Hypostatic Union. Similarly, Soteriology turns

on the pivotal concept of the mediatorship of

Christ and may be said to be implicitly contained

in 2 Cor. V, 19: "God indeed was in Christ,

reconciling the world to himself."

We have, therefore, to consider: (Ch. I), the

mediatorship of Christ, the possibility of the Re

demption, its congruity and necessity, and, by wayof a corollary, the highly interesting questionwhether or not the Incarnation was absolutely

i Pohle-Preuss, Christology, A Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarnation, St.

Louis 1913.

4 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

preordained; (Ch. II), the fact of the Redemption, its reality, its properties, and the concrete

mode of its realization. In connection with the

last-mentioned point we shall also treat (Ch. Ill)

of Christ s Descent into hell and His Resurrec

tion from the soteriological point of view.

CHAPTER I

CHRIST S MEDIATORSHIP AS A CONDITION OF OUR

REDEMPTION

SECTION i

THE POSSIBILITY OF THE REDEMPTION

I. DEFINITION OF THE TERM "MEDIATOR."

A mediator (mediator, i*<rinp)is one who holds

a neutral position between parties at variance,

and is therefore apt to interpose between them

as the equal friend of each.

a) Thus, in the political domain, a neutral

government sometimes intervenes between quar

relling powers by proffering its friendly offices as

arbitrator.

The notion of a mediator, therefore, comprises

two distinct elements, viz.: (i) The exist

ence of two extremes in contrary opposition,

and (2) a quality or characteristic proper to him

who interposes, which enables him to reconcile

the parties at variance.

This is the true Catholic notion of mediatorship. There

is also an heretical one, which appears in the religious

5


systems of the Gnostics and the Arians. To exalt the

Creator of the universe as far as possible above mere

matter, which they regarded as intrinsically evil, the

Gnostics invented a series of"

intermediate beings,"

which they called aeons, and which were supposed to

bridge the gap between the Godhead and the material

world. The last of these in a descending line was the

so-called Demiurge, who as creator of the material uni

verse was believed to be the proper mediator between the

absolute Being and the physical cosmos. 2 The Arians

regarded the Logos as the most exalted of creatures and

as creator of all the rest, and ascribed to him the office

of mediator between God the Father and the universe

created by the Logos. We have already disproved this

error by showing, in our treatises on the Divine Trinity3

and the Incarnation,4that, so far from being a creature,

the Logos is true God, consubstantial (fyoowios) with

the Father.

b) A duly qualified mediator may exercise his

functions either in the moral or in the ontological

order.5 In some manner or other moral always

presupposes ontological mediation, and hence the

one cannot be conceived apart from the other.

To perform the part of a moral mediator one mustbe able, either by one s natural powers, or through the

instrumentality of grace, to reconcile opposing extremes

in the order of being. Hence the distinction between

2 For a refutation of this dualistic Trinity, pp. 49 sqq., St. Louis 1912.error see Pohle-Preuss, God the An- 4 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,thor of Nature and the Supernatural, pp. 10 sqq.

pp. 17 sq., St. Louis 1912. 5 In ordine morali sive ethico; in

3 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine ordine ontologico sive essendi.

MEDIATORSHIP 7

mediator naturalis and mediator per gratiam. Moses,6

the Levites, the Prophets, and the Apostles were medi

ators by grace. So is every Catholic priest in virtue of

his ordination. As regards natural mediatorship, Christ

is our only Mediator in the moral order, because He is

the sole natural Mediator between God and man. The

fact of Christ s existence is in itself a mediation, a bond

between the Creator and His creatures. By uniting our

humanity to His Divinity, He united us to God and

God to us. He is of God and in God, but He is also

of us and in us."7

Being consubstantial with man as

well as with God,8 Christ is the born mediator be

tween God and man (mediator naturalis).

This unique natural mediatorship constitutes the foun

dation of an equally unique moral mediatorship. The

offended Deity exacted adequate atonement for the

sins of mankind, and therefore redemption or moral

mediation was impossible except on the basis of a natural

mediatorship.9

c) It follows, by way of a corollary, (i) that

mankind has but one mediator, because there is

no natural mediator between God and man other

than the Godman Jesus Christ; (2) that all

other so-called "mediators" are such merely by

grace. They owe their mediatorial power solely

and entirely to Christ, and can consequently be

called mediators only in a subordinate and sec

ondary sense.

6Cfr. Deut. V, 5:" Medius fui Catholic Theology, Vol. II, p. 140,

inter Dominum et vos I stood and ed., London 1901.

between the Lord and you."8 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology.

1 Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Q V. infra, Sect. 2.


No further argument is required to disprove the Prot

estant objection that Catholics obscure and degrade the

unique mediatorship of Christ by admitting a host of

priests and saints as co-mediators between God andman. "

It is an essential function of the office of a

mediator," says Aquinas, "to join together and unite

those between whom he is to interpose; for it is in the

middle that extremes meet. Now, to unite men with

God perfectively belongs to Christ, through whom menare reconciled to God. . . . And therefore Christ alone

is a perfect mediator between God and men, inasmuch as,

by His death, He reconciled the human race to God. . . .

There is, however, nothing to forbid others from beingcalled mediators between God and men under a certain

respect (secundum quid), in so far, namely, as they co

operate in uniting men with God, either by disposingthem for such a union (dispositive), or by assisting themin the process of unification (ministerialiter)"

10

2. THE DOGMA. Theologically speaking, Mediation is synonymous with Redemption. ThatChrist was our natural Mediator is an article of

faith, defined by the Council of Trent. "Si quishoc Adae peccatum [originate] . . . per aliud

remedium assent tolli quam per meritum unius

mediations Domini nostri lesu Christi, qui nos10 " Ad mediatoris officium proprie reconciliavit. , . . Nihil tamen pro-

pertinet coniungere et unire eos, in- hibet aliquos alias secundum quidter quos est mediator; nam extrema did mediatores inter Deum et ho-uniuntur in media. Unire autem mines, prout soil, cooperantur adhomines Deo perfective quidem con- unionem hominum cum Deo disposi-venit Christo, per quem homines five vel ministerialiter." S. Theol.,sunt reconciliati Deo. . . . Et ideo 33, qu. 26, art. i. Cfr. Franzelin,solus Christus est perfectus Dei et De Verbo Incarnato, thes. 46, Romehominum mediator, inquantum per 1881.

suam mortem humanum genus Deo

CHRIST OUR MEDIATOR 9

Deo reconciliavit in sanguine suo . . . anathema

sit." Anglice :

"

If any one asserts that this

sin of Adam [original sin], ... is taken away. . . by any other remedy than the merit of the

one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath

reconciled us to God in His own blood, ... let

him be anathema."

a) Moral mediation, or the Redemption

proper, according to Holy Scripture, consists

in the shedding of the blood of Him who was

the sole, because the natural, Mediator be

tween God and man. Consequently, Christ s

moral mediatorship is based upon His natural

mediatorship. Cfr. Col. I, 19 sq. : "Quia in

ipso [scil. Christo] complacuit omnem plenitudi-

nem inhabitare [= mediatio ontologica natu-

ralis] et per eum reconciliare omnia in ipsum

pacificans per sanguinem crucis eius [= mediatio

moralis] Because in him it hath well pleased

the Father, that all fulness should dwell; and

through him to reconcile all things unto himself,

making peace through the blood of his cross."12

Both the ontological and the moral mediatorshipof Christ are pregnantly summed up by St. Paul

in i Tim. II, 5 S(l-

:

" Unus enim Deus, unus

11 Cone. Trid., Sess. V, can. 3 12 For a full explanation of this

(in Denzinger s Enchiridion Synt- text cfr. J. N. Schneider, Die Ver-

bolorum, Definitionum et Declara- sbhnung des Weltalls durch das Blut

tionum in Rebus Fidei et Morum, Jesu Christi nach Kol. I, 20, Ratis-

ed. Bannwart, n. 790, Friburgi bon 1857.

1908).

io THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

et mediator Dei et hominuin,13 homo Christus

lesus, qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum proomnibus 14 For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus,who gave himself a redemption for all."

The Redemption of the human race began with the

conception of Jesus Christ and was consummated in

the shedding of His precious Blood on the Cross.15

Hence the functions of His moral mediatorship compriseall His human-divine (theandric) acts from the mangerto Calvary. His mediatorial act par excellence was the

institution of the New Covenant."

Et ideo Novi Testa-

menti mediator 16est, ut morte intercedente in redemp-

tionem earum praevaricationum, quae erant sub priori

Testamento, repromissioncm accipiant And therefore

he is the mediator of the New Testament : that by meansof his death, for the redemption of those transgressionswhich were under the former testament, they that are

called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance."17

In fact everything that Christ did and does for us

must be regarded as the result of His mediatorship, e. g.,

the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the

establishment of His Church, the mission of the HolyGhost, the sanctification of souls,

18etc.

b) We meet with a profound conception of

Christ s mediatorship in the writings of St. Augustine. This Father may be said to have antici

pated the objections of such later heretics as

13 ets /cat {jLeaiTys 6eou /cat 15 Cfr. Heb. X, 5 sqq.

&vdp<air<j)Vic

diadrjK rjs KOLVTJS14 6 dobs eavrbv avTikvTpov virep

17 Heb. IX, 75.

TT&VTUV. 18 Cfr. John XIV, 6.

CHRIST OUR MEDIATOR 11

Calvin, who held that Christ is our mediator only

according to His Divinity, and the older Lutheran theologians, who attributed His mediato

rial action exclusively to His human nature.19

The truth lies between these extremes. It is the God-

man as such who is our Mediator, but only in His hu

man nature." He is the mediator between God and

man," says St. Augustine,"

because He is God with the

Father, and a man with men. A mere man could not

be a mediator between God and man;nor could a mere

God. Behold the mediator : Divinity without humanitycannot act as mediator; nor can humanity without Di

vinity ;but the human Divinity and the Divine humanity

of Christ is the sole mediator between Divinity and hu

manity."20 And again :

"

Christ is the mediator [between God and man] not because He is the Word; for

the Word, being immortal and happy in the highest de

gree, is far removed from the miseries of mortal men;but He is the mediator as man."

21

c) The Schoolmen went into the matter even

more deeply by resolving the concept of mediation into its constituent elements.

10 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, V, et divina humanitas Christi." Serm.,1-10. 47, c. 12, n. 21.

20 "

Mediator Dei et hominum, 21 " Non ob hoc mediator est

quia Deus cum Patre, quia homo Christus, quia Verbum; maximacum hominibus. Non mediator homo quippe immortale et maxime beatumpraeter deitatem, non mediator Deus Verbum longe est a mortalibus\ mi-

praeter humanitatem. Ecce media- seriis; sed mediator est secundumtor: divinitas sine humanitate non quod homo." De Civ. Dei, IX, 15.est mediatrix, humanitas sine divini- For additional Patristic texts seetate non est mediatrix, sed inter di- Petavius, De Incarn., XII, 1-4;vinitatem solam et humanitatem Vasquez, Comment, in S. Theol.,solam mediatrix est humana divinitas III, disp. 83, c. i.


They had to meet this logical difficulty: The idea

of natural mediation essentially implies three distinct ele

ments, vis.: the two extremes God and man, and a

mediator who must be both God and man, i. e., God-

man(0av6po)7ro<s) . Christ, being God according to His

Divine Nature, is identical with the first of these two

extremes. Consequently, He cannot be a true and nat

ural mediator, for it is impossible to conceive Him as

a go-between between Himself and man. Cfr. Gal.

Ill, 20:" A mediator is not of one."

The Scholastics retorted that Christ is the mediator

between God and man not qua Logos, but qua WordIncarnate, i. e. as man. Cfr. I Tim. II, 5 :

" Onemediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus." TheGod man Christ Jesus is not only numerically distinct from

all other men, He is likewise hypostatically distinct from

the Father and the Holy Ghost, being a different Person

than either. Hence His mediatorship involves three dis

tinct factors: God, man, and Christ. It is true that,

regarded in His Divine Nature, as God, Christ is the

mediator between Himself and mankind. But his media

tion is not effected by the Godhead as such, it is effected

solely by His manhood, which is hypostatically united

with the Second Person of the Trinity. This gives rise

to seeming paradoxes, e. g.: As man He adores, as GodHe is adored; as man He gives satisfaction, as God he

receives it; as man He offers sacrifices, as God Heaccepts them. But this two-sidedness does not destroythe reality of Christ s natural and moral mediation. It

simply constitutes its substratum. To postulate a numerical distinction between the Divine Nature of Christ and

the Godhead of the Father and the Holy Ghost, would be

to base the possibility of the atonement on Tritheism.22

22 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol, 33, qu. 26, art. 2.

SECTION 2

CONGRUITY AND NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION

i. CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION. Inasmuch as an

end can be best attained by congruous means, i. c,, means

specially adapted to that particular end, the"

congruous"

may be said to be"

morally necessary." But it is never

necessary in the strict metaphysical sense of the term.

Failure to employ a merely congruous means does not

necessarily frustrate the end to be attained; nor does it

argue a moral fault. A wise man knows how to attain

his ends by various means, none of which may be posi

tively "incongruous." It is in this light that we must

regard certain profound arguments by which Fathers and

theologians have tried to show the congruity of the In

carnation for the purpose of Redemption. Here are

the more notable ones.

a) God in His exterior operation aims solely

at the manifestation of His attributes for the pur

pose of His own glorification. What more ef

fective means could He have chosen for this end

than the Incarnation?

In the Incarnation the seemingly impossible was ef

fected. The Creator was inseparably united with the

creature, the Infinite with the finite, omnipotence with

13

i4 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

mercy; Heaven and earth were locked together, as it

were, by the bond of the Hypostatic Union. Man is

a microcosm reflecting the whole created universe. Nodoubt this is what Tertullian had in mind when he wrote :

" The Son of God was born;I am not ashamed, because

men must needs be ashamed [of it]. And the Son of

God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is

absurd. And after having been buried, He rose again ;

the fact is certain, because it is impossible.":

(a) God s justice and mercy are glorified in the In

carnation, because, despite their diametric contrariety,

they both meet in it, in such manner that either attri

bute works itself out to the full extent of its infinity

without disturbing the other. 2 When, moved by infinite

mercy, the Son of God satisfied infinite justice by expiat

ing the sins of mankind on the Cross,"

justice and peace

kissed"

in very truth.3

(/?) God s love, too, triumphantly manifested itself in

the Incarnation of the Logos." God so loved the

world, as to give his only begotten Son."4 The mystery

of the Incarnation gives the lie to Aristotle, who held

that, owing to the impassable gulf separating man from

God, anything like "friendship"

is impossible between

them." Both he that sanctifieth, and they who are

sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not

ashamed to call them brethren."5

(y) Divine wisdom also reached its climax in this

sublime mystery."

If any one will diligently consider

the mystery of the Incarnation," says St. Thomas,"

he

L" Natus est Dei Films: non 2 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His

pudet, quia pudendum est; est mor- Knowability, Essence, and Attri*

tuus Dei Filius: prorsus credibile, butes, pp. 466 sqq., St. Louis 1911.

quia ineptum est; et sepultus resur- SPs. LXXXIV, II.

rexit; cerium est, quia impossibile."4 John III, 16.

De Carne Christi, c. 5. 5 Heb. II, u.

CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION 15

will find [therein] a profundity of wisdom exceedingall human understanding. . . . Hence it is that he who

piously meditates on this mystery, will constantly dis

cover [therein] new and more wonderful aspects."6

b) Why did the Second Person of the Most

Holy Trinity become incarnate, rather than the

First or the Third? There is a profound reason

for this.

We have pointed out in Christology7 that nothing in

the personal traits of the Father or of the Holy Ghost

would forbid either of these Divine Persons to assume

human flesh. But there is that in the personal character

of the Son which makes it more appropriate for Himto become incarnate than either the Father or the HolyGhost. It was through the Logos that the universe was

created ;

8 and what is more fitting than that it should

also be repaired by His agency ?9

Moreover, as the

Logos alone is"

the [perfect] image of God,"10

it was

highly appropriate that He should restore to its pristine

purity God s likeness in men, which had been destroyed

by sin.11 " The Divine Logos Himself came into this

world," says St. Athanasius,"

in order that, being the

image of the Father, He might restore man, who wascreated to His image and likeness."

12It also befit-

6"

Si quis autem diligenter incar- 8 Cfr. John I, 3.

nationis mysterium considerct, in- 9 Pope St. Leo the Great says:veniet tantam sapientiae profundita- ". . . ut, quoniam ipse est, per quern

tern, quod omnem humanam cogni- omnia facta sunt et sine quo factumtionem excedat. . . . Unde fit, ut est nihil, . . . cuius erat conditor,

pie consideranti semper magis ac etiam esset reformator." (Serm.,

magis admirabiles rationes huiusmodi 64, Migne, P. L., LIX, 358.)

mysterii manifestentur." Contr. ilO Cfr. z Cor. IV, 4.

Gent., IV, 54. 11 Cfr. Gen. I, 26.

7 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 12 Or. de Incarn. Verbi, 13.

I3S sq.


ted the hypostatic character of the Son of God that,

as the true son of the Virgin Mary, He should become the" Son of man," in order to reconstitute all men "

sons

of God "

as by a new birth. 13 The second of these

momenta is well brought out by St. Augustine when he

says :

" That men might be born of God, God was first

born of them. For . . . He through whom we were

to be created, was born of God, and He by whom wewere to be re-created, was born of a woman."

14St.

John of Damascus emphasizes the first-mentioned point

when he observes :

" The Son of God also became the

son of man;He took flesh from the Blessed Virgin, but

did not cease to be the Son of God."15

c) It strikes us as an admirable manifestation

of divine wisdom that the Son of God assumed

human nature rather than that of the angels.

Heb. II, 16: "Nusquam eniin angelos appre-

hendit, sect semen Abrahae apprehendit1G For

nowhere doth he take hold of the angels: but of

the seed of Abraham he taketh hold/

By assuming flesh, the Son of God wished to recon

struct human nature upon its own foundations and to

propose to man for his imitation a pattern exemplar in

the "Following of Christ," neither of which objects

could have been attained had the Divine Logos assumed

the nature of an angel.

13 Cfr. John I, 12; Gal. IV, 4 sq. 15 "

Filius Dei etiam filius hominis14 " Ut homines nascercntur ex fit, qui ex s. virgine incarnatus est,

Deo, primo ex ipsis natus est Deus. nee tamen a filiali proprietate disces-

Christus enint . . . natus ex Deo, sit." De Trinitate, i. Cfr. St.

per quern efficeremur, et natus ex Thomas, 5. Theol., 3a, qu. 3, art. 8.

femina, per quern reficeremur." 16

Tract, in loa., 2, n. 15.

CONGRUITY OF THE REDEMPTION 17

One of the most telling reasons why it was more ap

propriate for the Son of God to assume the nature of

man than that of the angels17

is that none but a God^

man could endow the created universe with the highest

degree of perfection of which it was capable. By the

hypostatic incorporation into the Godhead of a nature

composed of a material body and a spiritual soul, the

physical universe was linked with the realm of pure

spirits."

In no otherway," says Lessius,

"

could the

whole universe have been so appropriately perfected . . .

for by the assumption of man the whole universe was

after a fashion assumed into and united with the Godhead."

18 Thus Christ is in very deed both the natural

and the supernatural keystone of the cosmos, the be

ginning and the end of all things, the pivot of the

universe. Cf r. i Cor. Ill, 22 :

" Omnia enim vestra

simt . . . vos autem Christi, Chrlstus autem Dei For

all things are yours, . . . and you are Christ s, and

Christ is God s."

d) It is a further proof of divine wisdom that

the Son of God chose to come into this world as

the child of a virgin rather than as a full-grownman.

A sweet infant is more apt to win our affection than

a mature man. The virgin birth represented the real

ization of the last of the four possible modes in which

a human being can come into existence. Three of these

had already been realized in Adam, Eve, and their de

scendants. Adam was created immediately by God (sine

17 On the possibility of the 18 De Perfect. Moribusque Divinis,

Logos assuming the nature of an XII, 4.

angel, see Suarez, DC Incarn., disp.

14, sect. 2.

i8 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

mare et femina) ;Eve sprang from the male without fe

male co-operation (ex mare sine femina) ;their descend

ants are propagated by sexual generation (ex mare et

femina) ; Jesus Christ alone originated from a womanwithout male co-operation (ex femina sine mare). This

fact guarantees the reality and integrity of our Lord s

human nature, as has been shown in Christology.10

By His incorporation into the race of the"

first

Adam," our Blessed Redeemer became the"

second

Adam " 20 in a far higher sense than if He had appearedon earth in a celestial body. There is a similar an

tithesis between Eve and the Blessed Virgin Mary. In

Christ the male was elevated, ennobled, and consecrated ;

in Mary, the female." He did not despise the male," says

St. Augustine,"

for he assumed the nature of a man,nor the female, for he was born of a woman."

21

2. NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION. Neces

sity is twofold: absolute or hypothetical. Thelatter may be subdivided into a number of special

varieties. Hence in treating of the necessity of

the Redemption we shall have to distinguishbetween several hypotheses.

a) Wyclif asserted that the Redemption wasan absolute necessity. This proposition is untenable.

22

19 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. Blessed Virgin Mary, cfr. Saint

41 sqq. Thomas, S. Theol., 3a, qu. i, art. 5-20 Cfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq.; i Cor. 6. On the whole subject of this

XV, 45. subdivision cfr. De Lugo, De Myst.21

" Nee mares fastidivit, quia Incarn., disp. i, sect. 2; Suarez, Demarem suscepit; nee feminam, quia Incarn., disp. 3, sect. 3; Chr. Pesch,de femina factus est." Ep., 3. On Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. IV, 3rd ed.,the propriety of Christ s beconi* pp. 209 sqq.

ing incarnate at the particular 22 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En-time when He was conceived by the chiridion, n. 607.

NECESSITY OF THE REDEMPTION 19

Whatever is absolutely necessary involves the same

kind of certainty as that two and two are four. To as

cribe such mathematical necessity to the Incarnation

would be to deny the liberty of the Redemption as well

as that of the Creation, for the^reation_ofthe world was

jm indispensable condition of the Incarnation. Further

more, Revelation~clearty teacRes~that the Redemption of

the human race was in the strictest and most perfect sense

of the word a work of divine grace, mercy, and love.

Wyclif is wrong in holding that the Incarnation satisfies

a legitimate demand of human nature, for in that

hypothesis reason would be able to demonstrate with

mathematical certainty the possibility and existence of

the Hypostatic Union, which we know is not the case.

So far is the human mind from being able to understand

this mystery, that it cannot even demonstrate it after it

has been revealed.23 Hence the Incarnation, if it was at

all necessary, could be necessary only in an hypothetic

sense, that is, on some condition or other. What maythis condition be?

b) Raymond Lull, Malebranche, Leibniz, and

other champions of absolute Optimism contend

that when God determined to create the universe,

He of necessity also decreed the Incarnation, be

cause it is inconceivable that He should have

wished to deprive His work of its highest perfection. In other words, the concept of "the

best possible world" includes the Incarnation.

This theory, which destroys the liberty of the Creator,

is refuted in our dogmatic treatise on God the Author

23 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 45 sq.


of Nature.2 * Here we merely wish to point out two

facts: that the Creator Himself, without regard to the

future Incarnation, described His work as"

very

good,"

25 and that the Incarnation would not be pre

eminently a free grace if it corresponded to a strict

claim of nature.

The champions of moderate or relative Optimism-*

maintain that the present order, capped by the Incarna

tion, represents the"

best possible world," not because

the Incarnation was a metaphysical necessity, but because

it was morally necessary in view of God s superabundant

goodness. These writers forget that, while the Incarna

tion represents the apogee of divine glorification and the

highest perfection of the universe, it involves at the same

time an equally great humiliation and self-abasement(<?.r-

inanitio, iccWrw) of God s Majesty, which is inconceivable

in any other hypothesis except as a free decree of His

love.27

c) The further question arises : Did God oweit to fallen man to redeem him by means of the

Incarnation ? The answer is that the restoration

of the state of grace which man had enjoyed in

Paradise was just as truly a free gift of God s

mercy and benevolence as that state itself, nay,even more so.

That God was under no obligation to redeem His

creatures is evidenced by the fate of the fallen angels.

Cfr. also Wisd. XII, 12:"

Quis tibi imputabit, si peri-

24 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the An- Dei, disp. 9), Sylvester Maurus (Dethor of Nature and the Supernatural, Deo, disp. 51), and Viva (De In-

pp. 45 sq. earn., qu. 2, art. 2).25 Gen. I, 31. 27 Cfr. De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn.,26 E. g., Didacus Ruiz (De Volunt. disp. 2, sect. 1-2.


erint nationes, quas tu fecisti? Who shall accuse thee,

if the nations perish, which thou hast made?" St.

Augustine may have held harsh and exaggerated views

on the subject of predestination, but he was certainly

right when he said :

" The entire mass incurred pen

alty; and if the deserved punishment of condemnation

were rendered to all, it would without doubt be right

eously rendered."28

To say that the Incarnation, though the result of a free

decree, was the only means God had of redeeming the

human race,29 would be unduly to restrict the divine attri

butes of mercy, wisdom, and omnipotence in their essence

and scope.30 God might, without injustice, have left the

human race to perish in its iniquity, and there is nothing

repugnant either to faith or right reason in the assumption that He might, with or without the intervention of

some appointed saint or angel as representative of the

28"

Universa massa poenas dabat, sition see Stentrup in the Zeit-

ft si omnibus damnationis supplicium schrlft filr katholische Theoloyie,

redderetur, non iniuste procul dubio pp. 653 sqq., Innsbruck 1892. B.

redderetur." (De Nat. et Grat., c. Funke, Grundlagen und Voraussetz-

5.) ungen dcr Satisfaktionstheorie des

29 This opinion was held by St. hi, Anselm, Minister 1903, furnishes

Anselm (Cur Deus Homo? I, 4; II, a notable contribution in support of

12), Richard of St. Victor (De In- Dorholt s thesis. Cfr. also L. Hein-

carn. Verbi, c. 8), and Tournely (De richs, Genugtuungstheorie des hi.

Deo, qu. 19, art. i; De Incarn., qu. Ansclmus, Paderborn 1909; and

4 sqq.). It is absolutely without Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability,

Scriptural warrant. De Lugo says of Essence, and Attributes, pp. 462it:

* Mihi videtur satis ad errorem sqq.

accedere, eo quod, licet non omnino 30 " Sunt stulti qui dicunt : Nondare, fere tamen dare ex Scriptura poterat aliter sapientia Dei homines

colligatur opposition, accedente prae- liberare, nisi susciperet hominem et

sertim expositions communi Pa- nascerctur de femina. . . . Quibustrum." (Op. cit., disp. 2, sect, i, dicimus: Poterat omnino, sed si

n. 6). Lately an attempt has been aliter faceret, similiter vestrae stulti-

made to interpret St. Anselm s tiae displiceret." (St. Augustine,

opinion more mildly (Dorholt, Die De Agone Christi, XI, 12). For

Lehre von der Genngtuung Christi, other Patristic texts consult Peta-

pp. 201 sqq,, Paderborn 1891). vius, De Incarn., II, 13.

For a criticism of Dorholt s po-


whole race, have restored penitent sinners to His gracewithout demanding any equivalent whatever, or on the

basis of an inadequate satisfaction. Hence, according to

Suarez,31 the universal teaching of theologians that God

in His omnipotence might have repaired human naturein a variety of other ways,

32is so certain that

"

it cannotbe denied without temerity and danger to the faith."

d) The Incarnation can be conceived as a

necessary postulate of the Redemption only on the

assumption that God exacted adequate (i. e., in

finite) satisfaction for the sins of men. In that

hypothesis manifestly none but a natural media

tor, that is to say, a Godman, was able to give the

satisfaction demanded.

Sin involves a sort of infinite guilt and cannot be

adequately atoned for except by an infinite satisfac

tion.33 The Fathers held that not even the human

nature of Christ, as such, considered apart from the

Hypostatic Union, could make adequate satisfaction for

our sins;much less, of course, was any other creature,

human or angelic, equal to the task. For, in the wordsof St. Augustine,

" we could not be redeemed, even bythe one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ

Jesus, if He were not also God."34

Though this was the most difficult mode of redemption,

31 De Incarn., disp. 4, sect. 2, n. 3. 34 St. Augustine, Enchir., c. 108:32 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, aa,

"

Neque per ipsum Hberaremur unumqu. i, art. 2:

" Deus per suam mediatorem Dei et hominum, homi-omnipotentem virtutem poterat hu- nem lesum Christum, nisi esset etmanam naturam multis aliis modis Deus." For additional texts fromreparare." the writings of the Fathers consult

33 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 33, Vasquez, disp. 4, c. 3; Thomassin,qu- 2, ad 2. De Incarn., I, 4.


it was the one actually chosen by God. The Incarnation

of the Logos satisfied the full rigor of His justice, but it

also gave free play to His boundless love. The fact that

the atonement was decreed from eternity explains such

Scriptural phrases as John III, 14 :

"

Exaltari oportet35

Filium hominis The Son of man must be lifted up"

(as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert), and Luke

XXIV, 26:" Nonne haec oportuit pati

3Q Christum

Was it not necessary for Christ to have suffered these

things ?" 37

35v\f/o8ijvai Set. Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. IV,

36 25et iraQetv. 3rd ed., pp. 201 sqq., Friburgi 1909;37 Cfr. Heb. IX, 22. On the sub- De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. 2,

ject of the foregoing paragraphs con- 3, 5; Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 3,

suit J. Kleutgen, Theologie der Vor- art. 2; B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von

zeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 336 sqq., 381 sqq., der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 171 sqq.,

430 sqq., Munster 1870; Chr. Pesch, Paderborn 1891.

SECTION 3

PREDESTINATION OF THE REDEEMER

i. STATE OF THE QUESTION. Would the Son

of God have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not

sinned? In other words, was the Incarnation

absolutely predetermined? This is a most inter

esting question, and the famous theological con

troversy to which it gave rise, throws so clear a

light on the dogma of the Redemption and the

sublime dignity of the Redeemer, that we must

give an account of it here.

The underlying problem may be briefly stated

as follows: The Incarnation was dictated bytwo principal motives, namely, (i) compassionfor the misery of mankind, and (2) the glorifi

cation of God and His Christ.1 Which of these

motives outweighed the other? This questionmust receive an answer before we can determine

whether the fall of Adam was an indispensable

condition of the Incarnation, or whether the Di

vine Logos assumed human flesh irrespective of

the existence or non-existence of a sinful race of

iCfr. John XVII, 4 sqq.; 2 Thess. I, 12.

J KO^-v-t Arvt-v-^V* lk*Jt fcvw XO*Mt -J

, r. UT ^f^ /_

PREDESTINATION OF THE REDEEMER 25

v^} "** i~

men. The former view is held by the Thomists,

the latter by the Scotists. Sc,

The Scotists conceive the divine decrees appertaining

to the Redemption in the following order. First of all

comes the absolute predistination of Christ and His

divine kingdom, consisting of angels and men. In the

second place, the permission of the sin of Adam ;and in

the third place, the mission of Christ in His capacity of

passible Redeemer.

The Thomists, on the other hand, hold that God created

the universe without regard to Christ; that He subse

quently decreed to permit sin, and lastly determined on

the Incarnation of the Logos for the purpose of redeem

ing the human race.

As may be seen from this enumeration, the Scotists

put the Incarnation first, while the Thomists put it last.

From the Scotist point of view God s predominant motive in decreeing the Incarnation was the dignity and

glorification of Christ. The universe was created for

Christ s sake. The Thomists, on the other hand, ascribe

the Incarnation of the Logos primarily to God s mercy.In the Scotist hypothesis the Incarnation is altogether

independent of the Fall;the Thomists regard the latter

as an indispensable condition of the former.

Against the Scotist view there lies this objection: If

Christ was not predestined to atone for the sins of men,

why did He appear on earth as a passible Redeemer rather

than, as we should have every reason to expect, in the

capacity of an impassible, glorified Godman? TheScotists meet this difficulty by saying that the first and

absolute decree touching the Incarnation was modified in

view of the Fall;that after the Fall, Christ, who originally


was to have appeared among men as homo gloriosus, de

cided to assume human flesh and become homo passibilis.

In general terms the two theories may be characterized

as follows: The Scotistic theory is inspired by a tran

scendent idealism, whereas the Thomist view conforms

to the facts as we know them. To enable the reader to

form his own estimate we will briefly state the leading

arguments adduced by both schools.

2. THE THOMISTIC THEORY. That the Fall

of Adam was the chief motive which promptedGod to decree the Incarnation, is held by all

Thomists,2 and also by a large number of theo

logians belonging to other schools, e. g., Gregoryof Valentia, Vasquez, Petavius, Cardinals To-

letus and De Lugo, and even by the "ideal"

Lessius.3

Among modern theologians this the

ory has been espoused by Kleutgen,4

Stentrup,5

Tepe,6 and many others.

Toletus and Petavius absolutely reject the Scotist

hypothesis. Chr. Pesch 7 and L. Janssens8

prefer the

Thomist view, but admit the other as probable. In this

they follow St. Thomas himself 9 and St. Bonaventure. 10

The Angelic Doctor both in his Commentary on the Liber

Sententiarum and in the Summa Theologica expresses

2 Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn., diss. 7 Praelect. Dogm., Vol. IV, 3d ed.,

3, art. 3. pp. 216 sqq.

3 De Praedest. Christi (Opusc., t. 8 De Deo-Homine, II: Soteriologia,

II, pp. 483 sqq., Paris 1878). pp. 44 sqq.

4 Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, 9 Comment, in Quatuor Libras

pp. 393 sqq. Sent., Ill, dist. i, qn. i, art. 3.

5 Soteriologia, thes. 2. 10 Comment, in Quatuor Libras

Qlnstit. TheoL, Vol. Ill, pp. 663 Sent., Ill, dist. i, art. 2, qu. 2.

sqq., Paris 1896.

THE THOMISTIC THEORY 27

himself with cautions reserve. St. Bonaventure says :

" He who was macle flesh for us, alone knows which of

the two theories is the better. Which is to be preferredit is difficult to say, because both are Catholic and

sustained by Catholic authors."1X

The Thomistic conception is based upon arguments

which, though not cogent, are perfectly sound.

a) St. Thomas himself argues as follows:

"Some claim that the Son of God would have

assumed human flesh even if man had not sinned.

Others assert the contrary, and their teachingseems to have a greater claim to our assent.

The reason is this. Whatever proceeds solely

from the Divine Will, transcending every exi

gency of nature, must remain unknown to us,

except it be revealed by Sacred Scripture. . . .

Now, Sacred Scripture invariably assigns the sin

of Adam as the motive of the Incarnation. It is

more befitting, therefore, to regard the Incarna

tion as ordained by God for the cure of sin, so

that if there had been no sin there would havebeen no Incarnation."

l2

As a matter of fact, whenever Sacred Scripture speaksof the motive of the Incarnation, it invariably points to

11 I- c. innotescere non possunt, nisi qua-125". Theol., 33, qu. i, art. 3: tenus in S. Scriptura traduntur. . . .

"

Quidam dicunt, quod etiamsi homo Unde quum in S. Scriptura ubiquenon peccasset, Dei Filius incarnatus incarnationis ratio ex peccato primifuisset. Alii -vero contrarium as- hominis assignetur, convenientius

serunt, quorum assertioni tnagis as- dicitur, incarnationem opus ordina-sentiendum zndetur. Ea enim quae turn esse a Deo in remedium contraa sola Dei voluntate proveniunt peccatum, ita quod peccato non exi-

supra omne debitum naturae, nobis stente incarnatio non fuisset."

2& THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

the sin of Adam. It is because He was sent to redeem

the fallen race of men that Christ received the name of

"Jesus,"i. e., Saviour or Redeemer (salvator, o-wr^/p).

Cfr. Matth. I, 21 :

"

Et vocabis nomen eius lesum; ipse

enim 13 salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum

And thou shalt call his name Jesus ;for he shall save

his people from their sins."14

Jesus Himself never even

hints at any other motive. Cfr. Luke XIX, 10:"

Venit enim Filius hominis quaerere et salvum facere,

quod perierat For the Son of man is come to seek

and to save that which was lost." It seems perfectly

legitimate to conclude, therefore, that the redemption of

man was the main motive which prompted God to send

His Son. Had there been a higher and more com

prehensive motive, it would be strange to find no hint

of it in the Scriptures.

The weight of this argument must not, however, be

overrated. For, in the first place, the texts upon which

it is based are purely affirmative, but not exclusive, so

that the argument based upon them is at bottom merelyone ex silentio. And, secondly, the Scriptural passagesin question all refer to the actual order of salvation,

not to its hidden background. Although the Incarna

tion and the Redemption are causally correlated, Sacred

Scripture does not define the nature of their mutual

relationship, and tells us nothing at all concerning the

question whether the Incarnation is subordinate to the

Redemption, or vice versa.

b) Owing to their larger knowledge of the

writings of the Fathers, modern theologians are

Rom. Ill, 25; Gal. IV, 4; i Tim.14 Similarly Matth. IX, 13; Mark I, 15; j John III, 5.

II, 17; Luke I, 31; John III, 17;

THE THOMISTIC THEORY 29

able to construct a far more convincing Patristic

argument than was possible in the time of St.

Thomas. Holy Scripture merely intimates by its

silence that there would have been no Incarnation

if Adam had not sinned. The Fathers enunciate

this proposition in explicit terms.

"

I am persuaded," writes Cardinal Toletus,"

that, hadthe old Scholastic doctors been acquainted with the manyPatristic testimonials which I now adduce, they wouldhave admitted that the contrary view is absolutely de

void of probability."15 We will cite a few of these tes

timonials. St. Athanasius says :

" The assumption of

human nature [on the part of the Logos] presupposes a

necessity, apart from which He would not have put onflesh."

16St. Ambrose asks :

" What was the cause of

the Incarnation if not this, that the flesh which had sinned

by itself, should by itself be redeemed?"17 And St.

Augustine declares that"

the Lord Jesus Christ came in

the flesh . . . for no other reason than ... to save,

liberate, redeem, and enlighten [those who are engraftedmembers of His body]."

18 We may also refer to the

Creed :

" Who for us men and for our salvation de

scended from Heaven," and to the Easter hymn :

" Ohappy fault, which deserved to have so great and gloriousa Redeemer !

"

To sum up the argument: Tradition, so far as we

15 In S. TheoL, h. I. per se redimereturf " De Incarn.,16 Or. contr. Arian., 2, 54. Sim- c. 6, n. 56.

ilarly Gregory of Nazianzus (Or., 18 De Pccc. Her. et Rem., I, 26,

30, n. 3) and Cyril of Alexandria 39. Additional Patristic texts in

(Thesaur., V, 8). Lessius, De Praedest. Christi, sect.17 "

Quae erat causa incarnationis, i, n. 5; Stentrup, Soteriologia, thes.

nisi ut caro, quae per se peccaverat, i sq. Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn.,

II, 17.


are able to ascertain it, is against the absolute predesti

nation of Christ, but holds that, if man had not sinned,

the Son of God would never have become incarnate.

To escape this argument, the Scotists urge their above-

mentioned distinction between"

Christus gloriosus"

and"

Christus passibilis" God s original decree concerning

the Incarnation, they say, was from all eternity modified by the Fall of man, which necessitated a pas

sible redeemer; and it is to this particular aspect _jof

the Incarnation alone that the Patristic texts apply; at

least it is possible so to interpret them. But even if

they could be interpreted in the wider sense in which they

are understood by the Thomists, we should still be dealing

with a mere theory, which no rule of faith constrains us

to adopt. In support of this view the Scotist theologians

i point to the modification which the Patristic theory of"

satisfaction"

has experienced in course of time with

out detriment to its substance.

3. THE SCOTISTIC THEORY. If the question

at issue had to be decided purely on the author

ity of theologians, we should be unable to arrive

at a unanimous decision, so evenly is authority

balanced against authority. The Scotistic theory

originated with Abbot Rupert of Deutz. 19It

was adopted by Albert the Great 20 and developed

by Duns Scotus,21

in whose school it eventually

obtained the upper hand. 22It has also found

many ardent defenders outside the Scotistic

19 De Gloria et Hon. Filii Hominis 21 Comment, in Quatuor Libros

Libri XIII; De Trinit., Ill, 20. Sent., Ill, dist. 7, qu. 3.

20 Comment, in Quatuor Libros 22 Cfr. Mastnus, Disp. Theol.,

Sent., Ill, dist. 20, art. 4. disp. 4, qu. i.

THE SCOTISTIC THEORY 31

camp, among them Ambrose Catharinus,23 Ysam-

bert, St. Bernard of Siena, St. Francis de Sales,24

and especially Suarez.25 For a while its defend

ers were few, but of late the theory is again com

ing into favor. Among its modern champions we

may mention: Faber, Gay, Bougaud, Schell,

Fr. Risi, and Du Cappucce.26

The arguments for the Scotist position are un

deniably strong.

a) Their Scriptural basis is the oft-repeatedstatement of St. Paul that the Incarnation of

Christ was pre-ordained by an eternal and abso

lute divine decree without regard to the Fall.

The Apostle declares that all things are by Christ and

for Christ, i. e., tend towards Him as their final end and

object. Cfr. Heb. II, 10:"

Propter quern omnia et

per quern omnia For whom are all things and bywhom are all

things."2r

Col. I, 16 sqq. :

"

Omnia peripsum et in ipso

28 creata sunt . . . et ipse est ante

omnes zoet omnia in ipso constant; et ipse est caput

corports Ecclesiae, qui est principium,30

primogenitus ex

mortuis, ut sit in omnibus ipse primatum tenens 31 Inhim were all things created . . . and he is before all,

and by him all things consist. And he is the head ofthe body, the church, who is the beginning, the first

born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the

A!*^l

23 De Praedestin. Eximia Christi, 27 t>

# T&Lugduni 1542. Traj/ra.

24 De I Amour de Dieu, II, 4. 28 efr avrov25 De Incarn

-> disp. 5. 29

26"Primaute de Notre-SeigneurJesus-Christ," in the Etudes Fran- 31

ciscaines, 1890, 1900.


primacy." If Christ holds first place in the divine

economy of the universe, and the world of angels and menwas reserved to the last, so runs the Scotist argument, the

Incarnation cannot have been subordinate to the Creation

and Redemption, but, on the contrary, must rank far

above it. Without Christ there could have been no cre

ation. Hence Christ is"

before all,"

"

the first-born of

every creature."32 He is the centre and pivot of the uni

verse, not in consequence of the Fall, but absolutely and

from all eternity. He has not been added to the created

universe By~ accident, but rules it as Tr/xorevW, and is the

Alpha and Omega of all things from the beginning.33

b) Though this theory cannot be strictly dem

onstrated from the writings of the Fathers, yet

the Patristic interpretation of several passages in

the Sapiential Books of the Old Testament seems

to lend it weight. The fact that the Fathers

were unable to gauge the full bearing of their

interpretation does not forbid us to push to their

legitimate conclusions the principles which they

asserted.

We have pointed out in our treatise on the Trinity34

that certain of the Fathers applied Proverbs VIII, 22 :

" The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways,

before he made anything from the beginning,"35 to the

temporal birth of the Logos, that is, the Incarnation.

This can only mean that Christ was predestined to be

32 Col. I, 15; cfr. Rom. VIII, 29. 34 Pohle-Preuss, The Divine Trin-

33 The objections urged against ity, p. 157.

this interpretation may be read in 35 " Dominus possedit (efcrwe) meDe Lugo, De Myst. Incarn., disp. in initio viarum suarum, antequam

7, sect. 2. quidquam faceret a principio."

THE SCOTISTIC THEORY 33

the First and that all things were created for His sake.39

On the strength of Gen. II, 24 and Eph. V, 31 sqq.

several Fathers held that the nature of matrimony, as an

image of"

Christ s union with His Church," was re

vealed to Adam in Paradise. If this be true, our Lord s

appearance on earth cannot be conceived as conditioned

by the Fall." Even if man had not sinned, but

had remained in the state of innocence," says St. Augustine,

37 "

matrimony would still be the symbol of Christ s

union with His Church."38

When it comes to theological arguments, the

Scotists can allege in their favor all the reasons

which we have given above for the congruity of

the Incarnation as such, especially the fact that,

in the words of Lessius,39

"bythe assumption of

man the whole universe was, after a fashion,

assumed into and united with the Godhead."

Strangely enough, Lessius subsequently under

mined his own position by saying: "If anycreated nature was to be assumed primarily for

the sake of perfecting the universe, it would

have been the most perfect, i. e., that of the

highest angel."

40 This conclusion does not fol

low. Unlike man, an angel is not a "microcosm."

Besides, there is something sublime and over-

36 Cfr. Suarez, De Incarn., disp. 38 For the Thomist reply to this

5, sect. 2. argument see Lessius, De Praedest.37 "

Coniugium etiam in statu in- Christi, n. 23 sqq.

nocentiae, si homo non peccasset, 39 De Perfect. Mor. Div., XII, 4.

futurum sacramentum coniunctionis 40 De Praedest. Christi, n. 9.

Christi cum Ecclcsia." (De Nupt.el Concup., I, 21.)


whelming in the thought that, as Scotism con

sistently teaches, not only all men but all angels,

not only fallen and sinful man, but likewise manas constituted in Paradise, owe their original

sanctity entirely to the merits of an absolutely

predestined Redeemer; that all grace radiates

from Christ, the "sun of justice/ who sanctifies

angels and men and disperses the shadows of

death.

Perhaps the weightiest argument adduced for

the Scotist position is the one developed by Su-

arez : The end cannot be inferior to the meansdevised for its attainment. This would be the

case if the Incarnation merely served the pur

pose of the Redemption. No sensible hunter

would shoot a cannon to bring down a sparrow.Christ is not only the crown of the created uni

verse, He is also the climax of divine glorification.

Without Him the universe would be meaningless.He who is highest and most perfect in the order of

being, must also be first in the plan of creation,

and the fulness of divine glory cannot have been

dependent on the accident of the Fall.

The Scotistic theory recommends itself byjits

sublimity. It groups angels and men around

the Godman as the center of the universe, the

highest and final revelation, the beginning and

end of all things.41

41 Cfr. Jos. Pohle in the Katholik, Mainz 1886, II, 461 sqq., 578 sqq.

CHAPTER II

THE REDEMPTION OF THE HUMAN RACE THROUGHCHRIST S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT

SECTION i

THE REALITY OF CHRIST S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT

ARTICLE I

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT DEFINED

This Chapter deals with the concrete fact of Christ s

vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria) rather than with

the abstract notion of Redemption, which even heretics

do not entirely deny ;hence we must be careful to define

our terms.

i. EXPLANATION OF THE TERM "ATONE

MENT." a) By atonement we understand the

reparation of any wrong or injury, either material (damnum) or moral (offensa, iniurid).

Material injury demands restitution; moral in

jury can be repaired only by satisfaction or atone

ment in the strict sense of the term. The RomanCatechism defines "satisfaction" as "nothing else

than compensation for an injury offered to an

other." Satisfaction in the sense of discharging

35


a penance enjoined in confession will be treated

in connection with the Sacrament of Penance.

b) Atonement, in the sense in which the term

is used in Soteriology, presupposes an offence

committed against, or an injury done to, God.

It is for our sins that God demands satisfaction.

Sin and satisfaction are consequently correlative

terms, or, to put it more accurately, they are an

titheses clamoring for reconciliation.

The concept of sin contains a twofold element :

guilt (reatus culpae) and punishability (reatus

poenae). Guilt and punishability are inseparable. Their gravity depends partly on the dignityof the person offended (gravitas formalls) and

partly on the character of the offence committed

(gravitas materialis). God is infinite in dig

nity and majesty; therefore every grievous sin,

morally considered, involves an infinite offence.

"A sin committed against God," says St. Thomas,

"partakes in a manner of infinity, through its re

lation to the infinite majesty of God; for an of

fence is the more serious, the greater the personoffended."

1

Considered as a moral delinquency on the partof man, sin is a merely finite evil. In respect of

God, however, it is infinite. "Iniuria est in iniuri-

ato." This applies, of course, only to mortal sin,

which seriously disturbs the sinner s relation to

1 S. TheoL, 33, qu. i, art. 2, ad 2.

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT 37

God. This relation, if justice be given free

scope, cannot be restored except by means of ade

quate satisfaction (emptio, redemptio).

c) Grievous sin, as we have said, involves an

infinite offence, for which no creature, least of

all the sinner himself, can render adequate satis

faction. Adequate in this case means infinite

satisfaction, and infinite satisfaction can be

given only by one who is infinite in dignity.

Hence none but a Godman could redeem the hu

man race. Hence also the necessity of a vica

rious atonement.

2. DEFINITION OF "VICARIOUS ATONEMENT."

The notion of vicariatio does not imply that he

who acts as substitute or representative for an

other takes upon himself the other s guilt or sin

as such. No one can be the bearer or subject

of another s sins. In this erroneous sense vicar

ious atonement involves a contradiction, because

no mediator can give satisfaction for another s

sins unless he is himself sinless. Vicarious atone

ment, therefore, can only mean the voluntary as

sumption of a punishment due to sin, not in

deed the reatiis poence, which implies real guilt,

but the penance imposed by God. In other words,

the Godman renders infinite satisfaction in our

stead, and this satisfaction by its objective worth

counterbalances our infinite offence and is ac-


cepted by God as though it were given by our

selves.

To illustrate the case by an analogy. Thehuman race is like an insolvent merchant. Christ

voluntarily assumes our obligations and is com

pelled to pay the whole debt. The sum of this

debt is His Precious Blood, (i Pet. I, 18 sq.)

3. OBJECTIONS REFUTED. The Socinians, andmodern Rationalists generally, reject the Catholic dogma of Christ s vicarious atonement on the

pretext that it involves manifest contradictions,

(a) with regard to God, (b) with regard to

Christ, and (c) with regard to man. We will

briefly examine these alleged contradictions.

a) The doctrine of the atonement is held to be con

tradictory in respect of God for the reason that forgiveness of sins is sometimes attributed to pure mercy andsometimes to strict justice, whereas these two attributes

are mutually exclusive.

If the simultaneous manifestation of God s infinite

mercy and justice really involved an intrinsic contradic

tion, St. Paul would have been the first to incur this

charge, for he says in his Epistle to the Romans :

" Youare justified freely by his grace,

2

through the redemption 3 that is in Christ

Jesus."4 In exacting satisfaction

for our sins from His own Son instead of us poor sin

ners, God exercised in an eminent manner both His

mercy and His justice. There is no contradiction in

volved in this proposition. This would be the case onlyif the sinner were held to give adequate satisfaction in

25a>peai> Ty avrov ^dpiTt.

3 ta 7-775 dTroXvTpuffeus- * Rom. Ill, 24.

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT 39

person and his performance subsequently stamped as a

grace. Holy Scripture is perfectly consistent in teach

ing, on the one hand, that" God so loved the world as

to give his only-begotten Son,"5and, on the other, thai;

"

by sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh,

and of sin, [God] hath condemned sin in the flesh."G

b) The doctrine of the atonement is declared to be

contradictory for the further reason that it involves the

punishment of an innocent person in lieu of the guilty

criminal. It is downright murder, however disguised,

for God to exact the blood of His own guiltless Son in

expiation for the sins of others, say the Rationalists.

God would indeed be unjust had He imposed the guilt

and punishment of others upon His innocent Son as

though He were the guilty criminal. But this is by no

means the teaching of the Church. Not having per

sonally sinned, Christ could not be punished as a sin

ner. Hence His death was not a punishment in the

proper sense of the word, but merely a satisfactio

laboriosa. Furthermore, it was not imposed on Him

against His will. He Himself declares :

"

I lay down

my life for my sheep. ... I lay it down of myself,7 and I

have power to lay it down : and I have power to take it up

again."8 Volenti non fit iniuria (No wrong arises to

one who consents). Hence the atonement cannot be

said to involve a violation of commutative justice. Nordoes it run counter to distributive justice, for Christ s

dolorous passion and death, besides redounding to the ad

vantage of the human race, also brought Him personal

reward and glory. Cf r. Luke XXIV, 26 :

"

Ought not

5 John III, 16. 7 air

6 Rom. VIII, 3. Cfr. Pohle- 8 John X, 15, 18.

Preuss, God: His Knowability, Es

sence, and Attributes, pp. 466 sqq.


Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into

his glory ?"

c) In regard to man, the doctrine of the atonement

is denounced as repugnant on the score that one

who is guilty of a crime should, as a point of honor,

give the necessary satisfaction himself, and not shift

this painful duty to another. Our Rationalist adver

saries add that the idea of a man s appropriating to

himself the fruits of another s labor is preposterous.

They overlook the fact that man was absolutely unable

to render adequate satisfaction for sin. God manifested

His infinite love and mercy precisely in deigning to accepta "vicarious atonement. It cannot be proved that this

involves an injustice. The objection will lose muchof its force if we take into consideration the fact that

Christ represented the human race in the order of gracein much the same manner in which Adam had vicari

ously represented it upon the occasion of the Fall. Hencethe Scriptural antithesis between the

"

first Adam "

and

the"

second Adam." Christ is no stranger to us;He is

"

bone of our bone," our"

brother"

as well as our spir

itual head. His merits constitute as it were a family

heirloom, in which each of us has a share.

The privilege of participating in the merits of Christ s

vicarious atonement does not relieve us of the duty of

personally atoning for our sins. That Christ has ren

dered adequate satisfaction for the sins of the whole

race, does not mean that each individual human being is

eo ipso subjectively redeemed. This is the teaching of"

orthodox" Lutheranism, not of the Catholic Church.

We Catholics believe that the individual sinner must feel

sorry for his sins, confess them, and render satisfaction

for them, though, of course, no satisfaction can be of

THE DOGMA PROVED 41

any avail except it is based on the merits of our Lord

and Saviour Jesus Christ.9

ARTICLE 2

THE DOGMA OF CHRIST S VICARIOUS ATONEMENT PROVED

FROM REVELATION.

i. VARIOUS HERESIES AND THE TEACHING OF

THE CHURCH. The heretical opinions that have

arisen in course of time with regard to the dogmaof Christ s vicarious atonement owe their in

spiration either to Rationalism or to Pantheism.

The Rationalist error that the idea of individual

liberty absolutely excludes original sin, found

its embodiment in Pelagianism and Socinianism,

two heretical systems which, though not con-

temporaneous, agreed in denying original sin and

the atonement. Pantheism, which merges all

individuals into one Absolute Being and regards

sin as a function of the Godhead, gave birth to

Gnosticism and modern Theosophy.

a) All these heresies are based on a radically wrong

conception of the nature of sin.

a) Pelagianism rests on the fundamental fallacy

9 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIV, specious objections (see that writer s

cap. 8 (Denzinger-Bannwart, En- book, Die Krisis des Christentums

chiridion, n. 904). An excellent in der modernen Theologie, pp. 10

treatise on the philosophical aspects sqq., Berlin 1882) are effectively

of the atonement is G. A. Pell s refuted by B. Dorholt, Die Lehre

Das Dogma von der Sunde und Er- von der Genugtuung Christi, pp.

losung im Lichte der Vernunft, Rat- 160 sqq.. Paderborn 1891.

isbon 1886. Edw. von Hartmann s


that sin is essentially the free act of an individual andcannot be conceived as moral guilt incurred by propa

gation (original sin). In consequence of this basic error,

the Pelagians wrongly held that the grace of Christ has

for its object not the redemption of the whole human race

by the effacement of an inherited sin of nature, but the

setting up of an ideal or pattern of virtue in accordancewith which the individual is obliged to regulate his personal conduct. Christ gave us

"

a good example"

to

counteract the"

bad example"

set by Adam. Pelagian-ism credited the sinner with sufficient strength to arise

after falling, nay to attain to a state of perfect sinless-

ness 1 without supernatural aid, and hence denied the ne

cessity of grace and unduly exaggerated the moral ca

pacity of human nature. 2

The soteriological consequences implied in Pelagius

system were expressly drawn by Socinianism. This her

esy originated towards the close of the sixteenth century

by way of a reaction against"

orthodox "

Protestantism.

Its founders were Laelius Socinus and his nephewFaustus, both natives of Siena, Italy. Faustus Socinus

( I 539~ I6o4) systematized and developed the teachingsof his uncle in several works: De Christo Servatore, DeOfficio Christi, and Brevis Discursus de Ratione Salutis

1 Impeccantia, ava/J,apTr]ffia. bitrio, De Correptione et Gratia, De2 Cfr. Blunt s Dictionary of Sects, Praedestinatione Sanctorum, De

Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Dono Perseveraniiae, Contra lulia-

Schools of Religious Thought, pp. num Pelagianum, De Gestis Pelagii,415 sqq., New Impression, London De Octo Dulcitii Quaestionibus, Com-1903; also the Preface to P. ment. in Psalmos, Serm., x and xiv,Holmes translation of The Anti- and in his Epistles to Paulinus, Op-Pelagian Works of Saint Augustine, tatus, Sextus, Celestine, Vitalis, andVol. I, pp. i sqq., Edinburgh 1872. Valentine. Cfr. also the VariaSt. Augustine treats at length of Scripta et Monumenta ad Pelagia-Pelagianism in the following books: norum Historiam Pertin -tia at theDe Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, Contra close of Vol. X of the BenedictineDuas Epistolas Pelagianorum, En- edition of St. Augustine s works.chiridion, De Gratia et Libero Ar-

GNOSTICISM 43

Nostrae ex Sermonibus Fausti Socini. 3 Socinianismdenied the Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the

necessity of supernatural grace, and the dogma of the

vicarious atonement. Its champions alleged that Christ is

properly speaking ngithJi_Qur Saviour nor a true high.

grigsjLr- but merely a^isajcJaer pointing the way to salva^.

tion. The chief object of His coming was to_inculcatethe

" Our Father." To the Socinians have succeededthe modern Unitarians, who are distinguished fromtheir predecessors principally by the denial of the miraculous conception of our Lord and the repudiation ofHis worship. The Socinian theology also had consid

erable influence in forming the modern Rationalist

school. 4

Hermes and Gunther 5 held an intermediate positionbetween the Catholic dogma and these heretical vagaries.

(3) Diametrically opposed to the soteriological teach

ing of the Pelagians and Socinians is that of the Gnostics

and Theosophists.

Gnosticism was at bottom a Manichsean heresy. Its

votaries held that, since the human soul is part of that

principle (hyle) which is essentially bad, sin cannot be amoral delinquency, and for a man to be redeemed fromsin implies no more than that his soul is freed fromthe shackles of the material body. The human nature o|_Christ was regarded by the Gnostics as purely fictitious^

jand apparitional, because the Divine Logos could not pos-

"sWy unite Himself with matter, which is essentially evil.

3 These writings are collected in 4th ed., pp. 784 sqq., Freiburg 1910.the Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 5 On the teaching of HermesVols. i and 2, Irenopoli 1656. (-f 1831) and Giinther (+ 1863),

4 Blunt, Dictionary of Sects, etc., cfr. J. Kleutgen, S. J., Theologiep. 568. For a detailed analysis of der Vorzeit, Vol. Ill, pp. 457 sqq.,the Socinian teaching see A. Har- Miinster 1870.

tiack, Dogmengeschichte, Vol. Ill,


In such a system, needless to say, there was no room for

the Redemption, much less for a vicarious atonement.

Theosophy is subject to similar delusions. Being

radically Pantheistic, it regards sin_as_a cosmic factor

of equal necessity and importance with virtue. Good and

evil to the Theosophist are Two world-powers endowed

with equal rights. Sinjs__merejvja limitation of_jnfinity.

The Absolute Being alone, conceived as an impersonal

spirit, is unbounded and sinless. Each individual human

soul is part and parcel of the Absolute, and as such

its own God. In other words, tajD^dJ^_bejcomes_incar-nate in every human being. The human race may be said

to have beenTedeemeTByTJhrist only in the sense that Hewas the first to enlighten men on the true relationship

between the finite and the infinite, between good and evil.

The real redemption of man consists inJi^re^absorptioninto the infinite ocean of being, out of which he has tem-

pprarily_emerged like a

b) Though the Church has never formally (in

terminis) defined the doctrine of the vicarious

atonement,7 she has nevertheless inculcated the

substance of it so often and so vigorously that it

may be said to be one of the cardinal dogmas of

the Catholic religion. The Third General Council

of Ephesus (A.D. 431) solemnly defined: "If

any one therefore says that [Christ] offered Him-

e On modern Theosophy cfr. E. R. Hull, S. J., Studies in The-

Madame Blavatky s Isis Unveiled, osophy, 2nd ed., Bombay 1905; J

The Secret Doctrine, and Key to T. Driscoll in the Catholic Encyclo-

Theosophy; also the numerous writ- pedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 628 sqq.

ings of Annie Besant, especially her 7 Cfr. K. Martin, Cone. Vatican.

Esoteric Christianity; A. P. War- Document. Collcctio, p. 37. Fader-

rington, art. "Theosophy" in the born 1873.

Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. XV;

THE DOGMA 45

self up as a sacrifice for Himself, and not solely

for us,8

let him be anathema."9

Still more

clearly the Council of Trent: "If any one as

serts that this sin of Adam ... is taken away... by any other remedy than the. merit of the

one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath

reconciled us to God in His own blood, made unto

us justice, sanctification and redemption, ... let

him be anathema." In another place the sameCouncil says: "[Christ] by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross merited justifica

tion for us and made satisfaction for us unto Godthe Father/ 11 The last-quoted phrase closely

resembles the technical terminology of the

Schools.

2. PROOF FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE. The vi

carious atonement is clearly inculcated both bythe Old and the New Testament, though not, of

course, in the technical terms of modern theology.

a) Isaias gives graphic expression to it in the

8 Kaloi>xl 5r] virep pbvuv im&v. D. N. lesu Christi, qui nos Deo

Here is the whole passage in Latin: reconciliavit in sanguine suo, factus"

Si quis ergo dicit, quod pro se nobis iustitia, sanctificatio et redemp-obtulisset [Christus] semetipsum tio, . . . anathema sit." Cone. Tri-oblationem et non potius pro nobis dent., Sess. V, can. 3 (Denzinger-solis, anathema sit." Bannwart, n. 790).

9 Cone. Ephes., can. 10 (Denzin- 11 "

Qui . . . sua sanctissima Pas-ger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 122). sione in ligno crucis nobis iustifi-

Cfr. the Decretum pro lacobitis cationem meruit et pro nobis Deo(ibid., n. 711). Patri satisfecit." Cone. Trident.,

10 "

Si quis hoc Adae peccatum Sess. VI, cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bann-. . . per aliud remcdium asserit tolli wart, n. 799). We use Water-.quam per meritum unius mediatoris worth s translation.


famous prophecy which describes the suffering

of the "Servant of God/

The Messianic character of this prophecy is sufficiently

established by such New Testament texts as Mark XV,

28, Luke XXII, 37, Acts VIII, 33, I Pet. II, 22 sqq.12

We quote its salient passages :

"

Surely he hath borne

pur infirmities, and carried our sorrows, and we have

thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by

God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our ini

quities, he was bruised for our sins ;.the chastisement

of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are

healed. All we like sheep have gone astray, every one

hath turned aside into his own way; and the Lord hath

laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was offered 13 be

cause it was his own will,14 and he opened not his mouth ;

he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter. . . . For the

wickedness of my people have I struck him. . . . Be

cause his soul hath labored, he shall see and be filled;

by his knowledge shall this my just servant justify

many, and he shall bear their iniquities ... he hath

borne the sins of many, and hath prayed for the trans

gressors."15 The vicarious character of the

"

Ser

vant s"

suffering is asserted no less than eight times in

this passage : ( i )

" He hath borne our Infirmities ;

"

(2) He has "carried our sorrows;" (3) "He was

wounded for our iniquities ;

"

(4)" He was bruised for

our sins;" (5) The "chastisement of our peace was

12 The argument is well developed 14 On certain textual difficulties

by A. J. Maas, S. J., Christ in connected with the Hebrew word

Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. na aneh, see Maas., /. c., p. 241*

231 sqq., New York 1895. note.

13 The Masoretic text has, he was 15 Is. LIII, 4-12.

called upon. (Cfr. Maas, /. c., p.

240, note.)

SCRIPTURAL PROOF tf

upon him;"16

(6) "By his bruises we are healed;"

(7)"

The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us

all;" (8) "He was offered because it was his ownwill."

17 The passage furthermore embraces all the es

sential elements of Christ s vicarious atonement, to wit:

(a) the substitution of the innocent Messias for guiltysinners; (b) the resulting remission of punishmentand healing of the evil-doers; (c) the manner in whichHe made satisfaction, i. e., His sacrificial death. 18

b) The New Testament inculcates the dogmaof the vicarious atonement both directly and in

directly.

) The texts which teach it directly nearly all

employ the phraseology of, and are dependentupon, Isaias. Take, e. g., the exclamation of Johnthe Baptist recorded in John I, 29: "Behold theLamb of God, behold him who taketh away thesin of the world/ The passage reads as fol

lows in the original Greek :

"

"I8e 6 d^o? TOV eoi

6 atpwv rriv afiapriav TOV KOO/WW." The afjiapria TOV Kooyxou

is original sin. The verb cfyew, like the Hebrewwords Kto and k? employed by Isaias,

19besides

tollere, i. e., to take away, also means ferre or

portare, i. e., to assume or bear for another.St. Peter no doubt had the prophecy of Isaias

16 That is: The punishment which inferred from the nature of the suf-was to procure our peace with God fering. Cfr. Maas, Christ in Typeand with men, was inflicted on him. and Prophecy, Vol. II p 240 note

17 In this clause the prophet rather 18 Cfr. F. Feldmann, Der Knechtdescribes the detail of the Servant s Gottes in Isaias, Ch. 40-55, Frei-sufferings than insists on its vicari- burg, 1907.ous character; but this, too, may be 19 Is. LIII, 4 and n.


in mind when he wrote : "Who his own self bore

our sins20

in his body upon the tree ... bywhose stripes you were healed. For you were

as sheep going astray ;but you are now converted

to the shepherd and bishop of your souls."21

This text clearly inculcates Christ s vicarious

atonement and describes its concrete realization

(His death on the Cross).

St. Paul is equally clear. Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21 :

"Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for

us, that we might be made the justice of Godin him." The graphic phrase ^p ypvv a/xapnav

tTrolrjffev avrov either means: He hath made him

who was sinless a sinner, or, more probably, Hehath made him who was sinless a sacrifice for

sin.22 In either case St. Paul asserts the dogma

of Christ s vicarious atonement.

Special importance attaches to the many NewTestament texts which speak of man as being

"bought" or "purchased" by the Precious Blood

of Christ. Cfr. I Cor. VI, 20: "For you are

bought with a great price."

23I Pet. I, 18 sq. :

". . . you were not redeemed 24 with corruptible

things as gold and silver, . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspottedand undefiled." These terms are borrowed from

20 avriveyicev, 23

21 i Pet. II, 24 sq. 24 Redempti esiis,

22&fjLaprla

= sacrificium pro pec- Cfr. also Rom. Ill, 24, Eph. I, 7,

cato. Cfr. Gal. Ill, 13. i Tim. II, 6.

SCRIPTURAL PROOF 49

legal and mercantile usage; they mean that menwho groaned in the bondage of sin were re

garded as free or redeemed by God as soon as

Christ had offered His Precious Blood for them.

All of which proves ( i ) the reality of the atone

ment and (2) its vicarious character.

ft) Indirectly the Bible teaches the vicarious

atonement in all those passages in which Christ

is called the "second Adam" and contrasted with

the progenitor of the human race. Cfr. Rom.

V, 14 sqq. : "Death reigned from Adam unto

Moses, even over them also who have not sinned

after the similitude of the transgression of Adam,who is a figure of him who was to come. But

not as the offence, so also the gift. For if bythe offence of one, many died; much more the

grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one

man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.. . . For if by one man s offence death reigned

through one; much more they who receive abun

dance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice,

shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all mento condemnation; so also by the justice of one,

unto all men to justification of life," etc. i Cor.

XV, 22 sqq.: "As in Adam all die, so also in

Christ all shall be made alive," etc.

Adam, the physical and juridical head of the human

race, sinned vicariously, because he was the representa-


tive of all;in a similar manner Jesus Christ represented

the whole race when He restored it to justice. St. Paul s

parallel would be meaningless if our Saviour had not

acted as the representative of the entire human race

when he died on the Cross. If His role as Redeemer had

been confined to preaching and giving a good example, as

the Socinians allege, what need was there of His suffering

a cruel death ? And if He . died, not in our stead,

but merely"

for our benefit," why do not the Socinians

acclaim the holy martyrs as so many redeemers? Christ

became our"

mediator" and

"

redeemer"

in the Scrip

tural sense of these terms only by complementing His

teaching and example by an act of true and adequate

satisfaction for our sins. It is only in this sense that

St. Peter, "filled with the Holy Ghost," was able to

exclaim :

"

Neither is there salvation in any other

name,"25 and St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians :

"

Is

Christ divided? Was Paul then [who was also a

teacher of nations_and a martyr] crucified for youT^orwere you baptized in the name of Paul ?

" 26It is only

(in

this way that the name "

Jesus"

receives its full

significance as" Redeemer "

or"

Saviour"

of the human

race.

In view of the texts quoted it is incomprehensible howthe Modernists can allege that

"

the doctrine of the sacri

ficial death of Christ is not evangelical, but originated

with St. Paul." (See the Syllabus of Pius X, prop. 38).

3. PROOF FROM TRADITION. The Fathers

nearly all couched their teaching on the vicarious

atonement in Scriptural terms.

a) They did not treat purely soteriological

25 Acts IV, 12. 26 i Cor. I, 13.

PROOF FROM TRADITION 51

questions ex professo, but merely adverted to

them upon occasion. That the Socinians madeno attempt to base their teaching upon Patristic

texts, was due to the fact that Hugo Grotius had

triumphantly demonstrated the vicarious atone

ment from the writings of the Fathers. 27 Wewill quote but two of the many available texts.

"In accordance with the will of God," says St.

Clement of Rome, "our Lord Jesus Christ gaveHis blood for us, and His flesh for our flesh, andHis soul for our souls/

7 28 And St. Polycarp :

"Let us ever cling to our hope and the pledge29

of our righteousness, which is Christ Jesus, whobore our sins in His own body on the tree, . . .

and endured everything for our sakes, that we

might live in Him/ 30

b) On its philosophical side the dogma of the

vicarious atonement underwent a process of de

velopment, as is evidenced by the part which someof the older Fathers and ecclesiastical writers as

signed to the Devil.

:c The question arose as follows : God and Satan are

as it were two masters who contend for the possessionof mankind. Hence men by departing from God fell

27 H. Grotius, Defensio Fidei Ca- tavius, De Incarn., XII, 9 andtholicae de Veritate Satisfactions, Thomassin, Dogm. Theol., IX, 7.

published in 1614. Cfr. also Dorholt, Die Lehre von28 Ep. ad Cor., I, 49, 6. der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 62 sqq.,29

TU> dppapwvt. Paderborn 1891 and J. F. S. Muth,30 Ep. ad Phil., 8. Many addi- Die Heilstat Christi als stellvertre-

tional proofs from the writings of tende Genugtuung, pp. 169 sqq.,the Fathers are to be found in Pe- Ratisbon 1904.


under Satan s power, by whom they are now kept in

bondage. As, moreover, men had fallen into his power,not unwillingly, but of their own choice, may we not

say that the Devil has over them a real right, a right

of property and a right of conquest? Hence, when Goddecided to free Satan s captives, was He not bound in

justice to recognize and take into consideration the

Devil s rights? Many of the Fathers answered this

question affirmatively."31

St. Irenaeus was the first to

insist on the Devil s alleged rights.32

Origen did not

hesitate to say that Christ" ransomed us with His own

blood from the power of Satan."33

This, in itself bias-\

phemous conception, which logically leads to the conclu- I

sion that Christ gave His blood, nay His very soul to

the Devil, was rejected by Adamantius (about 300),(

who indignantly branded it as"

all nonsense and bias- i

phemy."34 Saint Gregory of Nyssa followed in

Origen s footsteps. But by pushing the theory to its

logical conclusions, he unconsciously demonstrated its

absurdity.35

Origen s notion was formally rejected by

Gregory of Nazianztis, who declared that Christ s death

on the Cross effectively destroyed the tyranny of Satan.

He says :

" For man to be sanctified by the humanity of

God, it was necessary that He Himself should free us

from the tyrant, who had to be overcome by violence, and

bring us back to Himself through the mediation of His

31 J. Riviere, Le Dogme de la Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II,

Redemption, Paris, 1905, (English pp. 113 sqq.

translation by L. Cappadelta, in 2 33 In Matth., 18, 8; In loan., 6,

vols., London 1909). The above 35.

passage is quoted from Vol. II, pp. 34 TroXXr? P\a<r<t>rjfJios avoid. Dein sq. of the English translation. Recta in Deum Fide, I, 27 (Migne,Over one-half of the second volume P. G., XI, 1756 sq.).

is devoted to a discussion of " The 35 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, TheDevil s Rights." Doctrine of the Atonement, Vol. II,

32 Cfr. Riviere-Cappadelta, The pp. 124 sqq.

THE ROLE OF THE DEVIL 53

Son."3G There was a modicum of truth in Origen s the

ory. By the sin of our first parents Satan had become,not indeed the absolute master of the human race, but the

instrument of divine wrath.37 But when Jesus Christ,

who was the Mediator between God and the human race,

gave adequate satisfaction to the offended Deity, the^reignof the Devil ceased. Very properly, therefore, does St.

Augustine38 attribute our release from the captivity of

Satan to the sacrificial character of Christ s death on

the Cross and His triumph over Satan to righteous

ness rather than might."

It pleased God," he says,"

that in order to the rescuing of man from the power of

the Devil, the Devil should be conquered, not by might,but by righteousness. . . . What, then, is the righteous

ness by which the Devil was conquered? What, except

the righteousness of Christ? In this redemption the

blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for

us, by accepting which the Devil was not enriched, but

bound, that we might be loosed from his bonds.":!1)

Hence, the redemption of man from the clutches of

Satan did not"

enrich"

our arch-enemy but enslaved

him, since the demands of righteousness were fulfilled.

It was St. Bernard of Clairvaux who first developed this

thought into the formal notion of vicarious atonement.

The prince of this world came and found nothing in

the Saviour," he writes;

"

and when he nevertheless

laid hands upon the innocent one, he rightly lost those

who were his captives, when He who owed nothing to

death, accepting the injury of death, rightly released him

who was guilty of sin, both from the debt of death and

36 De Agno Paschali, 22. teaching of St. Augustine cfr.

37 Cfr. John XII, 31; XIV, 30; a Riviere-Cappadelta, op. cit., II, 146Cor. IV, 4; Heb. II, 14. sqq.

38 De Trinit., IV, 13. On the 39 De Trinit., XIII, 13, 14, 15.


the power of the Devil. By what justice could this have

been exacted from man, since it was man who owed and

man who paid the debt? For if one died for all, [says

the Apostle, 2 Cor. V, 14], then all were dead : that,

namely, the satisfaction of one be imputed to all ... be

cause the one head and body is Christ. The head there

fore gave satisfaction for the members, Christ for His

bowels."40

Abelard, and especially St. Anselm, at length

delivered theology from"

a decaying1 doctrine which was

now superfluous, if not actually dangerous."41 The

abuse-of-power theory made way for St. Anselm s for

ensic theory of satisfaction, which, after having been

purged of its harsher features by St. Thomas, became

the common teaching of the Schoolmen.

Theology has a right, nay the duty, to subject this

theory, both in its original Patristic form and in the

shape which it assumed under the hands of the medieval

Scholastics, to respectful criticism. We do not deny that

the theory may be defensible within certain carefully de

fined limits. But as onesidedly developed by the Scholas-\

tics, it does not embody the whole truth which we are able \

to gather from Divine Revelation. Revelation contains

certain seed-thoughts which the Fathers and Schoolmen

failed to appreciate at their full value. The sacrifice of

the Divine Logos was dictated by infinite love and mercyas well as by strict justice. Cfr. John III, 16: "God

40"

Venit princeps huius tnundi Nam si unus (inquit) pro omnibus

ct in Salvatore non invenit quid- mortuus est, ergo omnes mortui sunt

quam. Et quum nihilominus inno- (2 Cor. V, 14) : ut videlicet satisfac-

centi manus iniecit, iustissime quos tio unius omnibus imfiutetur . . .

tenebat amisit, quando is qui morti quia caput et corpus unus cst

nihil debebat, accepta mortis iniuria Christus. Satisfecit ergo caput pro

iure ilium, qui obnoxius erat, et membris, Christus pro visceribus

mortis debit o et diaboli sohit do- suis." De Erroribus Abaelardi, cap.

minio. Qua enim iustitia id secundo 6.

ab homine exigeretur? Homo si- *! Riviere-Cappadelta, op. cit., II,

quidem qui debuit, homo qui sohit. 220.

SATISFACTION AND MERIT 55

so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son."42

God must not be conceived as an angry tyrant, who un

mercifully slays his Son in order to avenge himself on

the human race and thereby, as it were, to gratify the

Devil, who gloats over the misfortune of others. God is

just, but He is also a loving Father, who punishes His

wayward children in the person of His beloved Son to

show them the malice of sin by a terrible example. In

other words, we cannot harmonize all the revealed ele

ments of the atonement unless we give due emphasis to

the ethical factor. The purely forensic theory of satis

faction must be supplemented and deepened by the"

ethi

cal theory of reconciliation," which accentuates God s love

for Christ and the human race, and also the moral purposeof the Redemption, i. e., the internal redemption of man

by regeneration in God. Thus only shall we be able to

refute the objections more or less well founded

which Harnack 43 and Pfleiderer 44 have raised against

the theory of satisfaction championed by the Scholas

tics, notably St. Anselm.

4. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "SATISFAC

TION" AND "MERIT." Entitatively considered,

an act of satisfaction may also be a meritorious

act. Nevertheless there is both a logical and a

real distinction between satisfaction and merit as

such. Satisfaction, in the narrower sense of the

term, is reparation made for an offence, while

merit may be defined as a good work performed42 Cfr. also Eph. I, 3 sqq., II, 4 44 Religionsphilosophie, Vol. II,

sqq.; Tit. Ill, 4 sq., and i Pet. I, 3. 2nd ed., Berlin 1884, pp. 467 sqq.

43 Grundriss der Dogmengeschich-te, 4th ed., pp. 304 sqq.


for the benefit of another and entitled to a re

ward. 45Satisfaction supposes a creditor who

insists on receiving his just dues, merit a debtor

bound to give a reward. If the reward is a

matter of justice, we have a meritum de condigno,

if it is merely a matter of equity, a meritum de

congruo.The merits of Christ may be regarded from a

fourfold point of view : ( i ) As to their reality,

(2) as to the time when they were acquired, (3)

as to their object or purpose, and (4) as to the

scope of their application.

a) It is an article of faith that the Redeemer

gained merits for us.

Christ, says the Tridentine Council,"

merited justifi

cation for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of

the Cross." The same sacred Council employs the phrase :

"Per meritum unius mediatoris Domini nostri les-n

Christi" and anathematizes those who say, "Homines

sine Christi iustitia, per quam nobis mentit iustificari,

aut per earn ipsam formaliter iustos esse! 40 Isaias

regarded the Redemption as a meritorious work. Is.

LIII, 10 : "And the Lord was pleased to bruise him

in infirmity: if he shall lay down his life for sin, he

shall see a long-lived seed [i. e., spiritual progeny] and

the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand."

Here satisfaction and merit are so nearly alike as to be

45" Meritum est opus bonum in Sess. V, can. 3; Sess. VI, can. 10.

favorem alterius mercede vel praemio Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri-.

dignum." dion, n. 799. 790, 820.

wConc.Trid., Sess. VI, cap. 7;

THE MERITS OF CHRIST 57

materially identical; the Redeemer laid God under ob

ligation while satisfying His just claims. But since Hemerited not only grace for us, but likewise extrinsic

glory for Himself, His merits exceed the limits of the

satisfaction which He gave to His Heavenly Father, be

cause He did not need to give any satisfaction for Himself.

b) When did Christ perform His meritorious

actions? In attempting to answer this question

we must distinguish between the terminus a quoand the terminus ad quern.

Our Lord performed no meritorious actions (in the

technical sense of the term) outside of the period of His

earthly pilgrimage (status viae). Hence the terminus ad

quern was the moment of His death. 47 That this is the

teaching of Holy Scripture may be gathered from such

texts as John IX, 4 sq. ;Heb. IX, 12, X, n sqq. True,

St. Paul teaches that the glorified Redeemer continues to" make intercession for us in Heaven."

48 But the in

tercession He makes for us in Heaven is based on the

merits which He gained on earth and aims solely at the

application of these merits to individual men.

Which was the terminus a quo of our Lord s merito

rious actions? A man cannot perform any meritorious

deeds before he has attained to the full use of reason and

free-will, which generally occurs about the seventh year.

In the Godman Jesus Christ, human consciousness awokewhen the Godhead became hypostatically united with

manhood, that is to say, at the instant of His concep-

47 The question whether this limi- to an intestine necessity, is purelytation of Christ s meritorious action speculative, and will be discussed in

is based upon a positive and free Eschatology.decree of God, or whether it is due 48 Rom. VIII, 34; Heb. VII, 25.


tion.49 Hence the terminus a quo of His meritorious

actions was the first moment of His existence as God-

man.50

c) The principal object of Christ s meritorious

actions was the justification of sinners.

It is an article of faith that our Divine Saviour

merited for us the forgiveness of all sins, including

original sin, and, in addition, sanctifying grace. That the

actual graces required for and during the process of

justification also flow from the thesaurus of Christ s

merits, is a theologically certain conclusion.51Capreolus

denied it;

52 but the Tridentine Council, in teaching,"

Ipsius iustificationis exordium in adultis a Dei perChristum lesum praeveniente gratia sumendum esse"

evidently employs the phrase"

per Christum lesum "

in

the sense of"

per meritum Christi lesu." It is likewise

an article of faith that man, in the state of grace which

follows justification, receives all the graces and merits

which come to him solely from the treasury of the merits

of Jesus Christ.53 Our Lord Himself inculcates this bythe parable of the vine and its branches.54

Christ also merited a reward for Himself, which con

sists chiefly in His extrinsic glorification after death.

Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26 :

" Nonne haec oportuit pati Chri

stum et ita intrare in gloriam suamf Ought not Christ

to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his

glory?" Phil. II, 9:cc

Propter quod et Deus exaltavit

ilium et donavit illi nomen, quod est super onme nomen

49 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 53 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VI,

pp. 259 sqq. cap. 16; Sess. XIV, cap. 8. (Den-so Cfr. Heb. X, 5. zinger-Bannwart, n. 809, 904.)51 Cfr. 2 Tim. I, 9. 54 John XV, 5. On the grace of

f>2 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia, predestination cfr. St. Thomas, S.

thes. 36. Theol., 33, qu. 19, art. 3.

THE MERITS OF CHRIST 59

For which cause God also exalted him, and hath givenhim a name which is above all names." Heb. II, 9:"

Videmus lesum propter passionem mortis gloria et

honore coronatum We see Jesus . . . for the sufferingof death, crowned with glory and honor." It is conse

quently unscriptural to hold, as Calvin did, that Christ s

love for the human race prompted Him to waive all

claims to His own honor.55

In determining the scope of Christ s merits, Saint

Thomas proceeds as follows :

"

Since every perfectionand noble quality must be attributed to Christ, it follows

that He possessed by merit whatever others possess

by merit, unless it be something which would detract

from His dignity and perfection more thancould be gained by merit."

50Hence, he continues,

"

Christ merited neither grace, nor knowledge, nor beati

tude of soul, nor Divinity (i. e., the Hypostatic Union).As only that can be merited which one does not yet possess, Christ would have lacked all these perfections,and therefore it is plain that He merited only such thingsas the glory of the body, and whatever pertains to its

extrinsic excellence, e. g., the ascension, adoration, etc."57

d) The question: Who participates in the merits ofChrist? coincides with that regarding the universalityof the atonement, which we shall treat below, Sect. 2, Art.2.

58

65 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 58 On the whole subject dealt within this subdivision of our treatise

565". TheoL, 33, qu. 19, art. 3. consult Pesch, Praelectiones Dog-si L c. Cfr. Simar, Lehrbuch der maticae, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 252

Dogmatik, Vol. I, 4th ed., pp. 532 Sqq., Friburgi 1909.sqq., Freiburg 1899.

SECTION 2

THE PROPERTIES OF CHRIST S VICARIOUS ATONE

MENT

ARTICLE i

INTRINSIC PERFECTION OF THE ATONEMENT

Christ s vicarious atonement is intrinsically perfect and

comprises within its scope all sins and all sinners.

The intrinsic perfection of Christ s vicarious atone

ment manifests itself in three ascending stages, which

are technically called adequacy, rigorousness, and super

abundance.

By adequate atonement we understand a satisfaction

which completely and fully repairs the offence com

mitted, or, at least, is accepted as a full reparation by

the person offended. If the satisfaction rendered is of

such high intrinsic merit that the offended person is in

justice compelled to accept it, it is called rigorous. If

it exceeds the offence committed, it is superabundant.

Thesis I: The satisfaction which Christ made for

our sins was adequate, i. e., fully sufficient.

This thesis embodies the common teaching of

a majority of Catholic theologians.

Proof. The reality of Christ s vicarious

atonement is an article of faith, with which we60

ADEQUACY OF THE ATONEMENT 61

have already dealt (supra, Sect. i). In the

present thesis we are merely concerned withits^

intrinsic properties. As the Church has neverdenned these, the Scotists were free to estimate

them differently than the majority of Catholic

divines.

The Scotists and the Nominalists hold that Christ s

vicarious atonement derives its adequacy not from its

own intrinsic merit, but from the accidental circumstanceof its

"

extrinsic acceptation"

by God. Suarez rejectsthis theory as

"

neither probable, nor pious, nor suffi

ciently in accordance with the faith."1 This is a per

fectly just criticism, since both Holy Scripture andTradition declare that the satisfaction which Christ madefor us was equivalent to the offence inherent in sin.

a) Holy Scripture distinctly declares that wewere

"bought" with a"price/

2 and that this

price was the Precious Blood of our Lord. Cfr.

i Pet. I, 18 sq. : ". . . you were not redeemedwith corruptible things, ... but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted andundented." How could the blood of Christ becalled

"precious" if its value was not equivalent to the offence for the reparation of whichit was shed? St. Paul says: "You are boughtwith a great price."

3This phrase likewise indi

cates that the satisfaction given by our Divine Redeemer was equivalent to the guilt of sin.

1 De Incarn., disp. 4, sect. 3, n. n. 3 Pretio magno, TIUTJS i Cor.2 Pretium, \trpov. VI, 20.


Moreover, the Bible tells us that the Godman im

molated Himself in expiation for our sins.

Hence the satisfaction He gave to His Heavenly

Father must be of equal value with Himself, and

therefore, to say the least, adequate.

Tim II, 5 sq.: "There is one God, and one

mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

who gave himself a redemption for all (""*-

TPov]" The graphic term <WXvTPov, which St.

Paul here employs instead of plain w^o,, shows

that he conceives "the redemption for all" as a

full equivalent for sin. "Quanta iniuna, tanta

satisfactio."In fact, it is only in this hypothe

sis that we can understand why the Apostle

attaches such tremendous importance to the

singleness of our Lord s sacrifice on the Cross, in

contradistinction to the multiplicity of the inef

fective offerings of the Levites. Cfr. Heb.

12 and 28 : "Byhis own blood he entered once

into the holies, having obtained eternal redemp

tion. ... So also Christ was offered once to

exhaust the sins of many."

b) Patristic texts in support of our thesis wil

be found infra, p. 71- A convincing theologi

cal argument for the adequacy of the atone

ment may be deduced from the concept of our

Lord s natural mediatorship (supra, Ch. I, Sect.

, ,.lSem,l,l*ai.


a) JBjL-XJrtue ofjhe Hypostatic Union all hu

man actions of the Godman are infinitely valuable

in the eyes of God, independently of their extrinsic acceptation, because a theandric merit de

rives its full value solely from the infinite dignityof the Logos.

6 But an atonement, the expiatory

power of which is, morally considered, infinite,

cannot be conceived otherwise than as adequate.

/?) The Scotists and the Nominalists are con

sequently in error when they teach that the meri

torious and expiatory value of Christ s vicarious

atonement, though extrinsically infinite becauseof its benevolent acceptation on the part of God,

7

is not so intrinsically, i. e., on account of its ownimmanent worth. 8

Scotus own teaching on this

point is uncertain. 9 But the great majority of

Scotist theologians, including such later authors

as Frassen, De Rada, and Hen.no, undoubtedlyunderestimated the meritoriousness of Christ s

theandric operation by asserting that it became

infinitely valuable only through the condescensionof God in deigning to accept it as such. The Scotists admit that Christ s human actions, because

performed by the exalted person of the Godman,were invested with a certain equitable claim to

6 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, o Scotus, Comment, in Quatuorpp. 161 sqq. Libras Sent., Ill, dist. 19. Hauzeur

7 Infinitas extrinseca ob benignam and a few other Scotists attemptedDei acceptationem. to reconcile their master s teaching

8 Infinitas intrinseca ob valorem with the senteniia communis, but in

innatum. vain


be received as of infinite value by a loving God;

but they deny that these actions can by their own

power attain to infinitude. This they declare

to be impossible because these actions are essen

tially the product of a finite (human) nature.

As the intrinsic or bullion value of a coin need

not equal the extrinsic valuation stamped upon

its face, they say, so the human actions of our

Saviour were in themselves of a merely finite

value, but capable of being raised to a higher valu

ation by God.

Mastrius and a few others restrict the Scotistic

theory to the thesis (which no one denies) that,

to render His atonement valid in actu secundo,

our Divine Saviour had first to assure Himself

of its acceptation on the part of God, not indeed

per moduni principii dignificantis, but per modiun

conditionis praeviae. This is beside the question.

What the Scotists assert is that the satisfaction

which Christ made for our sins was intrin

sically insufficient or inadequate, and that what

it lacked in intrinsic merit was supplied byGod s extrinsic acceptation. Their basic error

consists in this that they fail to distinguish be

tween the physical entity and the ethical value of

Christ s meritorious actions, confounding the

finite character of the former with the infinity of

the latter. Justly, therefore, do the Thomists 1(

10 Cfr. Billuart, DC Incarn,, diss. 19, art. 5.


insist that the Hypostatic Union endows a phys

ically finite act with a morally infinite value, be

cause it is the infinite Divine Person that performsthat act as principiuni quod, employing the finite

nature merely as principiuni quo. Were we to

trace the Scotist theory to its sources, we should

probably find that its originators had no clear con

ception of the character of theandric operationand misconceived the true nature and scope of

the Hypostatic Union. 11

Thesis II: The satisfaction which Christ made for

our sins was not only adequate, but rigorous, accord

ing to the standard of strict justice.

Proof. In the preceding thesis we saw that

Christ s vicarious atonement was quantitatively

adequate, i. e., equivalent to all the sins of mankind. We have now to show that it was ade

quate also in quality, i. e., measured by the stand

ard of strict justice (secundum rigorem iustitiae).

In other words, it was not necessary for God s mercyto supply anything over and above the satisfaction ren

dered by Christ, since this satisfaction fully covered all

just claims.

This thesis does not embody an article of faith. It is

not even a theological conclusion. But it voices the

11 On the uncertain teaching of gen, 1907, pp. 241 sqq. On theScotus cfr. P. Minges, O. F. M., general subject of this thesis cfr.

Compend. Theol. Dogmat. Specialis, also De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn.,Vol. I, pp. 213 sqq., Monachii 1901; disp. 6, sect, i; Scheeben, Dog-Theologische Quartalschrift, Tubin- matik, Vol. Ill, 251, Freiburg 1882.


more general teaching of Catholic divines, especially of

the Thomist school, and of Suarez, Tanner, Gregory of

Valentia, Franzelin, and others. In a limited way we

may also number among its defenders those Scotist the

ologians who, like Mastrius, admit that the atonement

satisfied divine justice, though not to its full extent.

a) It pertains to the dogmatic treatise De Deo

Uno 12to show that the only kind of relation

possible between God and His creatures is a

free but real relation of rights and duties based

upon the veracity and fidelity of the Creator.

Christ s vicarious atonement embodies all the con

ditions necessary and sufficient to establish a re

lation of strict and rigorous justice. These con

ditions are five in number, to wit: () Equiva

lence of debit and credit; () difference of person

between debtor and creditor; (y) payment of the

debt out of the debtor s own means; (8) absence

of all other indebtedness ; () payment of the debt

in person or through a bondsman. These condi

tions are selected somewhat arbitrarily, and it is

not easy to prove that Christ fulfilled them all.

For this reason some theologians prefer not to

speak of a rigor iustitiae. However, the senten-

tia communior rests on fairly solid ground.

a) That Christ fulfilled the first of the conditions

enumerated was shown in Thesis I.

ft) Condition number two demands that debtor and

12 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes,

pp. 457 sqq.


creditor must be separate and distinct persons. "Satis-

factio debet esse ad alterum." No one can be his owndebtor. How could Christ fulfil this condition? Since

He is Himself God, is it not physically the same personthat merits and rewards ? This difficulty cannot be solved

by the retort that Christ renders satisfaction to God the

Father. Humanity s creditor was not the Father alone,

but the whole Trinity.13 The right solution seems to be

this: In atoning for our sins, Christ acts both as manand as God, and hence makes satisfaction virtually as a

double person: (i) the man Jesus makes satisfaction to

God for our sins in His human nature, as if He were a

different person from the Logos; (2) The Logos, as God,

accepts this satisfaction. If Christ, as man, was able to

practice the virtues of obedience and worship towards

Himself as God, it can be no contradiction to say that,

as man, He gave satisfaction to Himself, qua God, ac

cording to the strict measure of justice.

We must, however, beware of misinterpreting the ex

pression duplex persona moralis, as Berruyer (a pupil of

Hardouin) did when he asserted that the humanity of our

Lord was a quasi-suppositum, to which, as to a distinct

human person, must be ascribed certain actions of Christ

which had no intrinsic hypostatic connexion with the Per

son of the Logos.14

y) The third of the conditions enumerated above is

13 "What does it mean to be the and iniquity of men." Ennar. in

mediator between God and men?" Ps., 29, 2, i.

asks St. Augustine, and answers the 14 On this dangerous error see

question as follows: "It means to Legrand, De Incarn., diss. n, Paris

be a mediator not between the 1860; von Schazler, Das Dogma vonFather and men, but between God der Menschwerdung Gottes, 24,

and men. What is God? He is Freiburg 1870; Scheeben, Dogmatik,Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. . . . Vol. Ill, pp. 29 sqq., Freiburg 1882;Christ was constituted mediator be- B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von der Ge-

tween this Trinity and the infirmity nugtuung Christ i, pp. 435 sqq., Pa-derborn 1891.


that the debtor must pay his liability out of his own be

longings."

Satisfactio debet fieri ex bonis propriis."

Did Christ fulfil this condition ? As He was a man, His

power of giving satisfaction for our sins (vis merendi sive

satisfaciendi) must have been a grace, L e., a free gift

of God, and consequently the atonement cannot have

been a payment made by Him out of His own means.

Even the supernatural merits of a justified man, being due

to pure grace, cannot satisfy rigorous justice. Indeed we

may broadly say that, as man possesses nothing of his own,but has received everything he has from God, whether bycreation or by grace, so Christ s human nature, which was

the principium quo of His meritorious and expiatory ac

tion, was not His own but a gift of the debtor, i. e., God.

This objection may be met as follows: It was not the

man Jesus, but the Godman, whose meritorious actions

made satisfaction for our sins. In other words, not the

human nature of Christ as such made satisfaction, but the

Divine Logos through the functions of His human na

ture, which, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, is so inti

mately united to the Logos that He possesses and governsit with absolute sovereignty as its sole principium quod.

To attribute such a sovereign control over the humannature of Christ to the Father and the Holy Ghost,

i. e., to the Trinity qua Godhead, would be tantamount

to asserting that it was not the Logos alone who was

made flesh, but the whole Blessed Trinity.15 But this is

manifestly repugnant. The human nature of Christ was

the personal property of the Logos, and the satisfaction

He made through that nature was made ex bonis pro

priis.16

8) We come to the fourth condition :

"

Satisfactio

15 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, is Cfr. Ysambert, De Myst. In-

pp. 132 sqq. earn., disp. 6, art. 2-3, Paris 1639.


debet esse ex alias indebitis." Satisfaction must be

made by means of something which the debtor does not

already owe to his creditor on some other account. It

may be argued that this condition, too, remained unful

filled in the case of our Divine Saviour, because whatever

He did and suffered, He was obliged to do and suffer

for reasons other than that prompting the atonement,such as gratitude and obedience to God, a feeling of de

pendence, piety, etc. Can an action to which one is

obliged by so many titles be in strict justice regarded as

meritorious?

Suarez offers two solutions of this difficulty, (i)The rigor iitstitiac, he says, is to be measured purely and

solely by the titulus iustitiae. Even if a debtor were obli

gated by gratitude towards his creditor, he would never

theless satisfy rigorous justice as soon as he paid the last

farthing of his indebtedness. Though other duties re

mained, justice as such would be satisfied. (2) Theintrinsic merit of the satisfaction which Christ madefor our sins is infinite, and as such capable of satisfying,

not merely one single title of justice, but many, nay, an

infinite number of such titles. Consequently justice can

be rigorously satisfied even though there are other titles

and duties.

e) The last condition is that satisfaction must be made

by the debtor for himself."

Satisfactio debet fieri prose ipso, non pro alienis." Strictly speaking, Christ did

not fulfil this condition, because He made atonement for

others. It is to be noted, however, that the rigor iustitiae

can be satisfied by proxy, provided the substitute is

formally accepted by the creditor and the proportionbetween debt and reparation is strictly observed. Let it

not be objected that where an offence has been committedthe offended person waives his claim to strict justice by


surrendering his right to personal satisfaction. He does

not remit the debt, nor any part thereof, but merely com

mutes it into something of equal value. 17

Thesis III: The satisfaction which Christ made

for our sins was more than adequate and rigorous ;it

was superabundant.

This thesis may be characterized as"

coin-

munis," since it is held by practically all theolog

ical schools.

Proof, a) A Scriptural argument may be

drawn from St. Paul s antithetical sentences in

tracing the analogy between Adam and Christ.

Cfr. Rom. V, 15: "But not as the offence, so

also the gift. For if by the offence of one manydied ;

much more 18 the grace of God, and the

gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath

abounded unto many."And even more point

edly Rom. V, 20: "Where sin abounded,- grace

did more abound/ 21 The Apostle here distinctly

asserts that Christ gave superabundant satisfac

tion for our sins. The sin was great, but the

atonement and the graces flowing therefrom are

still greater.22

17 Cfr. on the subject of these 18 Multo magis, TroXXw /J,a\\ov.

conditions and their fulfilment by 19 In plures abundavit, els rovs

Christ: Franzelin, De Verbo Incarn., iro\\ovs eirepiaaevafv-thes. 47, Rome 1881 (new edition, 20 Abundavit, eTr\e6vO,ffev,

1910); B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von 21 Superabundant gratia, vircpe-

der Genugtuung Christi, pp. 424 sqq., Trepiffaevo ei rj ^apts-Paderborn 1891; Tepe, lust. Theol, 22 Cfr. Eph. i, 3-8; John X, 10.

pp. 639 sqq., Paris 1896.

THE ATONEMENT SUPERABUNDANT 71

b) The Fathers generally held that the ade

quacy of the atonement can be most effectively

demonstrated from its superabundant meritori-

ousness.

Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem trenchantly argues:" He who died for us was of no less value. He was

not a visible lamb, no mere man, nor yet an angel,

but the incarnate God. The wickedness of sinners was

not as great as the righteousness of Him who died for

us. Our sins were not equal to the justice of Him whodied for us."

23St. Chrysostom exemplifies this truth as

follows :

" Our experience has been like that of a manwho was cast into prison with his wife and children and

servants for a debt of ten oboli, and another man came

and plumped down not only ten oboli, but ten thousand

gold talents, and then led the prisoner into the royal

chamber, placed him on an exalted throne, and allowed

him to share in the highest honors. . . . For Christ paidfar more than we owed, and in a larger measure, like as

the infinite ocean exceeds in magnitude a tiny drop of

water."24

c) If Christ s vicarious atonement was super

abundantly meritorious, that is to say, far in ex

cess of the sins for which it was made, its intrin

sic worth must have been actually infinite. This

inference is demanded by all the rules of theological logic, and hence we need not wonder that

Suarez lays it down as the common teaching of

MCatech., 33, c. 13. Cfr. also B. Dorholt, Die Lehre von24 Horn, in Ep. ad Rom., 10, 2. der Genngtuung Christi, pp. 376

Additional Patristic texts apud Pe- sqq., 419 sqq.; Muth, Die Heilstat

tav., XII, 9 and Thomassin, IX, 9. Christi, pp. 228 sqq.


Catholic divines that "the actions of Christ pos

sessed a value which was absolutely and strictly

infinite in making satisfaction and acquiring

merits before God."25

a) St. Thomas demonstrates this proposition by a the

ological argument based on the infinite dignity of the God

man." The dignity of Christ s flesh," he says,

" must not

be estimated solely by the nature of the flesh, but by the

assuming person ;it was the flesh of God, hence its dig

nity is infinite."2G As a matter of fact, the intrinsic moral

value of an action varies in proportion to the dignity

of him who performs it, and therefore the actions of a

person of infinite dignity, when offered in satisfaction for

an offence, must be infinitely meritorious.

To demonstrate the infinite value of Christ s vicari

ous atonement, it is not necessary to have recourse to

its superabundant merit; the proposition follows as a

corollary from the fact of its mere adequacy. If no

one but a Godman was able to give adequate satisfaction

for our sins, each and every one of Christ s theandric

actions, even the most insignificant, must have been suffi

cient, nay more than sufficient, for the purposes of the

atonement, because each and every action performed by

a Godman is by its very nature infinitely meritorious.

As to the question, why the meritorious actions of our

Lord had of necessity to culminate in His dolorous pas

sion and death, St. Thomas says :

"

If we regard the

amount paid for the redemption of the human race, any

suffering undergone by Christ, even without death, would

25 "Opera Christi Domini habuisse tenableness of the Scotistic theory

valorem absolute et simplidter in- of extrinsic acceptation v. supra,

finitum ad satisfaciendum et meren- pp. 63 sqq.

dum apud Deum." De Incarn., 26 S. TheoL, 33, qu. 48, art. 2, ad

disp. 4, sect. 4, n. 3. On the un- 3. Cfr. Suarez, op. cit., n. 17 sqq.

THE ATONEMENT SUPERABUNDANT 73

have sufficed for the redemption of the human race, on

account of the infinite dignity of His person. . . . But

if we regard the payment of the price, it must be ob

served that no other suffering less than Christ s death was

deemed sufficient by God the Father and by Christ Himself to redeem the human race."

27

0) That the satisfaction which Christ made for

our sins was infinite, may also be inferred from

certain utterances (though they are not ex-ca

thedra decisions) of the Holy See. Among the

propositions of Bajus condemned by Pope Pius Vin the year 1567 is the following: "The works

of justice and temperance performed by Christ

derived no additional value from the dignity of

His person."28 Hence it is Catholic teaching

that the actions of Christ derived a higher value

from the "dignity of His Person." How high is

this value to be rated? Evidently it must have

corresponded to the infinite dignity of the God-

man, which is merely another way of saying that

it was infinite.

A far more important pronouncement for our

present purpose is this from the Bull "Unigeni-

27 "Si ergo loquamur de redemp- neris a Deo Patre et Christo aliae

tione humani generis quantum ad passiones Christi absque morte."

quantitatem pretii, sic quaelibet pas- Quodlib. 2, art 2. Cfr. Dorholt, op.

sio Christi etiam sine morte suffecis- cit., pp. 405 sqq.

set ad redemptionem humani ge- 28 "Opera iustitiae et temperan-neris propter infinitam dignitatem tiae, quas Christus fecit, ex dignitate

personae . . . Si antem loquamur personae operantis non traxeru.nl

quantum ad deputationem pretii, sic maiorem valorem." Prop. 19 (Den-dicendum est quod non sunt depu- zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n.

tatae ad redemptionem humani ge- 1019).


tus" of Pope Clement VI, A. D. 1343: "He is

known to have shed, not a little drop of blood,

though this would have sufficed for the redemp

tion of the entire human race, because of the [Hy-

postatic] Union with the Logos, but streams

of it, like unto a river. . . . That the mercy in

volved in such a large effusion [of blood] be not

rendered vain, empty, and superfluous, He laid up

for the Church militant a copious treasure, which

the good Father desires to dispense to his children,

in order that it may become an infinite store-house

for men, and that those who make use of it mayshare in the friendship of God/ 29

Pope Clem

ent, in issuing his Bull, did not intend to define

the dogmatic teaching of the Church with regard

to this "infinite treasure." Nor does the document

contain any clear expression as to whether Christ s

merits are to be conceived as actually or po

tentially infinite. Hence the above-quoted words

cannot be said to constitute a binding dogmatic

definition. We may, however, safely assume that

Clement VI intended to represent the treasure of

Christ s merits as actually infinite, for this is the

obvious meaning of his words, considered both in

:29 " Non guttam sanguinis modi- tio redderetur, thesaurum militanti

cam, quae tamen propter unionem Ecclcslae acquisivit, volens suis

ad Verbum pro redemptione totius thesaurizare filiis pius Pater, ut sic

humani generis suffecisset, sed co- sit infinites thesaurus hominibus,

piose velut quoddam profluvium nos- quo qui usi sunt Dei amicitiae par-

citur effudisse . . . Quantum ergo ticipes sunt effecti." Denzinger

e.vinde, ut nee supervacua, inanis e\ Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 550.

superflua tantae effusionis misera-

CHRIST DIED FOR ALL 75

themselves and in connection with the context.

The doctrine of the superabundant merits of

Jesus Christ and His Saints forms the groundwork of the Catholic teaching on indulgences,

which we shall explain more fully in a later

volume of this series.30

ARTICLE 2

EXTRINSIC PERFECTION OR UNIVERSALITY OF THEATONEMENT

If, as we have shown in the preceding Article, the

satisfaction made for our sins by Christ was intrinsically

perfect, there is a priori ground for assuming that it

must have embraced all men without exception. In matter of fact the universality of the atonement objectively

coincides with the universality of God s will to save the

entire human race (vohmtas salvifica), Here we shall

merely touch upon a few important points bearing on the

Redemption.

Thesis I : Christ died for all the faithful, not onlyfor the predestined.

This proposition is strictly de fide.

Proof. The predestined are those who actu

ally attain to eternal salvation. Of the "faith

ful/5

i. e., those who have the true faith, many are

unfortunately lost.

a) Predestinarianism was taught by Calvin,

and also by the younger Jansenius, who hereti-

30 In connection with the Sacrament of Penance.


cally asserted that"

It savours of Semi-Pelagian-

ism to say that Christ died, or shed His blood,

for all men without exception."1 This proposi

tion was censured as "false, foolhardy, and scan

dalous" by Innocent X, who added that, "under

stood in the sense that Christ died for the salva

tion of the predestined only," Jansenius thesis is

furthermore "impious, blasphemous . . . and

heretical." Consequently it must be accepted as

an article of faith that Christ died also for those

who were not predestined. These are the "faith

ful,"i. e. (in the New Testament) all who have

received the Sacrament of Baptism, be they in

fants or adults. For all baptized Christians are

bound to accept the Creed, which says that Christ

"descended from Heaven for us men and for our

salvation."2

b) Sacred Scripture is so clear on this point

that we may well marvel at the existence of

Predestinarianism. St. Paul must have had the

"faithful" in mind when he wrote to the Thes-

salonians: "For God hath not appointed us

unto wrath, but unto the purchasing of salva

tion by our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us."

Again, Christ Himself, assuredly the most faith-

i "Semipelagianum est dicere, 2 "... qui propter nos homines

Christum pro omnibus omnino ho- et propter nosiram salutem de-

minibus mortuum esse out sanguinem scendit de coelis."

fudisse." Prop. Damn. lansenii, 5 3 i Thess. V, 9 sq.

(Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion,

n. 1096).


ful exponent of the Divine Will, in the touchingprayer which He pronounced as the High Priest

of humanity, included all the faithful, in fact,

indirectly, the whole human race. Cfr. JohnXVII, 20 sq. : "Non pro eis [scil. Apostolis]autem rogo tantum, sed et pro eis qui credituri

sunt* per verbwn eorum in me, . . . ut credat

mundus* quia tu me misisti And not for them

[i. e., the Apostles] only do I pray, but for themalso who through their word shall believe in me;. . . that the world may believe that thou hastsent me."

c) The teaching of the Fathers on this pointis copiously expounded by Petavius,

6 and weneed not expatiate on it here.

7

Thesis II : Christ died for all men without exception.

This thesis may be qualified as "saltern fidei

proximo,!

Proof. The Provincial Council of Quiercy(A. D. 853) defined against Gottschalk: "As

there never was, is or will be any man whosenature was not assumed by our Lord JesusChrist, so there never was, is or will be any manfor whom He has not suffered; though not all

4Trepc TUV TTiffrevovTuv. Augustine s teaching by the Jansen-iva. o Koaftos Trio-reiV?/. ists consult Dechamps, De HaeresiDe Incarn., XIII, 2 sq. Janseniana, 1. II, disp. 7.

7 On the misrepresentation of St.

8


are redeemed by the mystery of His passion/

Pope Alexander VIII, A. D. 1690, formally con

demned the proposition that "Christ gave Him

self for us as an oblation to God, not for the

elect only, but for all the faithful, and for the

faithful alone."9 The Tridentine Council defines

the dogmatic teaching of the Church on this point

as follows: "Him [Christ] God hath proposed

as a propitiator, through faith in His blood, for

our sins;and not for our sins only, but also for

those of the whole world."

a) This Tridentine teaching is thoroughly

Scriptural, in fact it is couched in the very lan

guage of Holy Writ. Cfr. i John II, 2 : "Et

ipse est propitiation

pro peccat-is nostris, non pro

nostris aiitein tantum, sed etiam pro totius

mundi 12 He is the propitiation for our sins:

and not for ours only, but also for those of the

whole world." i Tim. II, 6 must be interpreted

in consonance with the text just quoted. "Qui

8 "Christus Jesus D. N., sicut nul- electis, sed pro omnibus el soils fide-

lus homo est, fuit vcl erit, cuhts no- libus." (Denzinger-Bannwart,

tura in illo assumpta non fuerit, ita chiridion, n. 1294.)

nullus est, fuit vel erit homo, pro io"Hunc proposuit Deus propi-

quo passus non fuerit, licet non tiatorem per fidem in sanguine ip-

omnes passionis eius mysterio re- sius pro peccatis nostris, non solum

dimantur." The controversies inci- outem pro nostris, sed etiam pro to-

dent to the Council of Valence (A. tius mundi." Cone. Trid., Sess. VI,

D. 855) were due to a misunder- cap. 2 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n.

standing. Cfr. B. Dorholt, Die 794)

Lehre -von der Genugtuung Christi, n tXao-^os-

pp. 323 sqq. i2clXXa Kal irepl 6Xoi> rov KOC-

9 "... dedit semetipsum pro no- /JLOV-

bis oblationem Deo, non pro solis


dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus

[soil, hominibus] Who gave himself a redemption for all [i. e., for all men]/ The context

shows that St. Paul means to emphasize the

universality of God s will to save all men. Wemay also point in confirmation of our thesis to

such passages as 2 Cor. V, 14, in which the

Apostle numbers among the elect such as are still

in the state of original sin as well as those whoare justified. "Si units pro omnibus 13 mortuus

est, ergo omnes 14 mortui sunt If one died for

all, then all are dead."15

b) The Jansenists did not deny that the

Fathers who wrote before Pelagius clearly taughtthe vicarious atonement to be as universal as

God s will to save mankind, i. e. } that it embraces

all human beings without exception. But theyclaimed that a change came with St. Augustine,who succumbed to the evil influence of Predesti-

narianism. It is to be noted that the famous

African Doctor was warmly defended againstthis calumnious charge by one of his contemporaneous disciples, St. Prosper of Aquitaine.

16

13inrep iravTdov- holt, Lehre von der Genugtuung

I* ot iron/res. Christi, Paderborn 1896, pp. 31715 For an explanation of this text sqq., by Tricassin, De Praedestina-

see Al. Schafer, Erkldrung der bei- tione, p. I, sect. 7, punct. 4 sqq.,den Briefe an die Korinther, pp. and by Franzelin, De Deo Uno,439 sqq., Munster 1903. thes. 32, Rome 1883. The fate of

16 We cannot enter into the con- unbaptized infants will be discussed

troversy here. The student will in Vol. VII of this series.

find it exhaustively treated by Dor-

8o THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

Thesis III: The atonement did not benefit the

fallen angels.

This proposition is de fide.

Proof. Origen taught that Christ also died

for the demons, who were destined at some fu

ture time to be released from hell. This error

(dTroKarao-raais Travrwv) was closely related tO

another, harbored by the same learned but

erratic divine, vis.;that the Logos assumed the

form of an angel to redeem the lost angels, just

as He became man to redeem sinful humanity.

These vagaries were condemned as heretical by

a council held at Constantinople in 543, and

again by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A. D.

553-17

The dogma embodied in our present thesis is

intimately bound up with that concerning the

fall of the angels and their eternal banishment

from Paradise.18

Being condemned to everlast

ing hell-fire, the evil spirits can have no share in

the merits of the Redeemer. "For although there

is assigned to angels also perdition in the fire pre

pared for the Devil and his angels," says Ter-

tullian, "yet a restoration was never promised

17 Cfr. Denzinger, Enchiridion, General Council in 553, though the

ed. 9, n. 193 and 198. Fr. Diekamp acta of the latter do not mention

(Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten the fact. Cfr. Chr. Pesch, S. J.,

im 6. Jahrhundert und das V. allge- Theologische Zeitfragen, Vol. II,

meine Konzil, Munster 1899) has put Freiburg 1901.

a quietus on an ancient controversy is Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Au-

by showing that Origenism was con- thor of Nature and the Supernat-

demned both by the Council of Con- ural, pp. 34O sqq.

stantinople in 543 and by the Fifth

WHY SOME ARE LOST 81

them. No charge about the salvation of angels

did Christ ever receive from the Father; and

that which the Father neither promised nor com

manded, Christ could not have undertaken."

Thesis IV : The doctrine of the universality of the

atonement is not disproved by the fact that manyhuman beings are eternally lost.

This proposition may be qualified as theolog

ically certain.

Proof. The Council of Trent teaches : "But,

though He died for all, yet not all receive the

benefit of His death, but those only unto whomthe merit of His Passion is communicated."

According to Holy Scripture, the universality

of Christ s vicarious atonement is not absolute

but conditional. Those only are saved who com

ply with the conditions necessary for participat

ing in the fruits of the Redemption, viz.: bap

tism, faith, contrition, cooperation with grace,

perseverance. Cfr. Mark XVI, 16: "Quicredi-

derit et baptizatus fuerit, salvus erit; qui vero

non crediderit, condemnabitur He that be-

lieveth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he

that believeth not shall be condemned."

19 De Came Christi, c. 14. Cfr. [20 "Verum etsi ille pro omnibus

Dorholt, Lehre von der Genugtuung mortuus est, non omnes tamen eius

Christi, pp. 353 sqq. On the partici- beneficium recipiunt, sed ii dum-pation of the good angels in the taxat, quibus meritum passionis corn-

merits of the Redeemer see Pohle- municatur." Sess. VI, cap. 3.

Preuss, Christology, pp. 243 sqq. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 795.


"The blood of thy Lord," observes St. Augus

tine, "is given for thee, if thou wilt; if thou wilt

not, it is not given for thee."

Theologians distinguish between God s antecedent and

His consequent will to save men. Antecedently He

willed to save all men without exception, even those who

are lost;voluntate consequent^ however, the damned are

in fact, though not in principle, excluded from the fruits

of the Redemption. It is correct to say, however, in

spite of this limitation, that Christ also died for the

damned, both past and future, because they are lost

through their own fault.

The atonement may be regarded as universal from

still another point of view. Satisfaction is either merely

sufficient or efficacious. It is sufficient if it provides

adequate means of salvation. It is efficacious if these

means are appropriated and utilized by those to whom

they are offered. Catholic divines unanimously teach

that Christ died for all men secundum sufficientiam,

non tamen secundum efficaciam. It is indeed quite ob

vious that if a man neglects to appropriate the fruits of

the Redemption, he derives no more benefit therefrom

than one who is dying of thirst receives from a spring

within his reach but from which he refuses to drink.

"

Although [Christ] by His death made sufficient satis

faction for the sins of the human race," says St. Thomas,

"yeteach individual man must seek for the remedies

whereby to work out his own salvation. The death of

Christ may in a manner be called the universal cause of

salvation, like as the sin of the first man was, after a

fashion, the universal cause of damnation. But it is nec

essary that the universal cause be applied to each one

21 Serm., 344, n. 4.

WHY SOME ARE LOST 83

in particular, that each may participate in its effect.

The effect of the sin of our first parents descends to

each one of us by the propagation of the flesh, while

the effect of our Saviour s death comes to each by spir

itual regeneration . . . and therefore it is necessary that

each individual human being should seek to be regenerated

through Christ and to employ all other means whereby the

death of Christ becomes efficacious."22 In other words,

the atonement is universal only with regard to its objec

tive value or sufficiency, not in respect of its subjective

application or efficaciousness. 23

22 "

Quamvis autem sufKcienter igitur peccati primi parentis pervenit

pro peccatis humani generis sua ad unumquemque per carnis ori-

morte satisfecerit, sunt tamen uni- ginem, effectus autem mortis Christi

cuique remedia propriae salutis pertingit ad unumquemque per spi-

quaerenda. Mors enim Christi est ritualem regcnerationem . . . et ideo

quasi quaedam universalis causa oportet quod unusquisque quaerat

salutis, sicut peccatum primi ho- regenerari per Christum et alia sus-

minis fuit quasi universalis causa cipere, in quibus virtus mortis

damnationis. Oportet autem uni- Christi operatur." Contra Cent.,

versalem causam applicari ad unum- IV, 55, sub. fin.

quodque specialiter, ut effectum uni- 23 Cfr. Dorholt, op. cit., pp. 307

versalis causae participet. Effectus sqq., 330 sqq.

SECTION 3

THE CONCRETE REALIZATION OF CHRIST S VICA

RIOUS ATONEMENT

In the two preceding Sections we have shown that

the atonement was real and intrinsically as well as ex-

trinsically perfect. The question now arises: What

were the specific actions by which the Godman made satis

faction for our sins ? Or, to express it in simpler terms,

How did Christ redeem us? We pray:"

By Thy holy

Cross Thou hast redeemed the world." This does not

imply that our Divine Saviour s previous actions had

no reference to the purpose of the Redemption. His

whole life, from His conception to His death on the

Cross, was a chain of expiatory actions, each in itself

sufficient to redeem the world jj^g^tu^rimo. But it

was an essential feature of the scheme of salvation that

jnjictu secundo, I. e., actually, no satisfaction was accept

able but that which had its consummation in the trag

edy on Golgotha.

In the present Section, therefore, we shall first treat

of Christ s Death on the Cross (Article i) and then of

two subsequent events of peculiar soteriological import,

viz.: His Descent into Hell (Article 2) and His Glori

ous Resurrection (Article 3).

CHRIST S DEATH 85

ARTICLE i

CHRIST S DEATH ON THE CROSS

We are here considering the death of our Di

vine Redeemer not as a sacrifice, but merely as the

means of our salvation. It was by His passion

and death that Jesus actually redeemed mankirid.

The circumstance that His death was a bloody

sacrifice constitutes Him a priest; this aspect of

the matter will receive due attention in Part II,

Chapter i, infra.

i. CHRIST S DEATH THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF

OUR REDEMPTION. In view of the central posi

tion which the Cross of Christ occupies in the

history of the Redemption, the Tridentine Coun

cil asserted a truth self-evident to every Christian

when it defined : "Of this justification the causes

are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of

God and of Jesus Christ, . . . while the efficient

cause is a merciful God;

. . . but the meritorious

cause is His most beloved only-begotten Son, our

Lord Jesus Christ, who . . . merited justification

for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of

the Cross and made satisfaction for us to God the

Father."1

l "Huius iustificationis causae lesus Christus, qui . . . sua sanctis-

sunt finalis quidem gloria Dei et sima passion? in ligno crucis nobis

Christi, . . . efficiens vero miseri- iustificationem meruit et pro nobis

cars Deus, . . . meritoria autem di- Deo Patri [scil. per appropria-

lectissimus Unigenitus suus D. N. tionem] satisfecit." Cone. Trid.,


So important a dogma must loom large in the

New Testament and be at least foreshadowed in

the Old.

a) Apart from certain Old Testament types

(such as the sacrifice of Isaac, the scapegoat, the

brazen serpent, etc.),2 the Messianic prophecies

afford numerous intimations of the bloody pas

sion and death of the future Messias. Most of

these occur in the prophecies of Isaias and the

Book of Psalms. Isaias, in speaking of the satis

faction rendered by the "servant of the Lord,"

invariably describes it as a dolorous passion fol

lowed by death.4 The 2ist Psalm characterizes

salvation as the outcome of intense tribulation and

suffering. "But I am a worm, and no man; the

reproach of men, and the outcast of the people.

All they that saw me have laughed me to scorn :

they have spoken with the lips, and wagged the

head. . . . My strength is dried up like a pot

sherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws:

and thou hast brought me down into the dust of

death. . . . They have dug my hands and feet.

They have numbered all my bones. And they

have looked and stared upon me. They parted

my garments amongst them; and upon my ves

ture they cast lots/5

Sess VI cap. 7 (Denzinger-Bann- sis. XLII, 1-9; XLIX, i sqq.; L,

wart, n. 799). 4 sqq., LIII. 4 sqq. Cfr. Maas.

2 On these and other types of the op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 231 sqq.

suffering Messias see A. J. Maas, S. 4 See supra, pp. 46 sq.

J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, 5 Ps. XXI, 7 sqq. Cfr. Maas, op.

Vol. II, pp. 322-343. cit->

Vol< H> ppl 264-28 7-

CHRIST S DEATH 87

b) The New Testament fairly swarms with

passages in support of the dogma. Christ Himself says : "Filius hominis non venit ministrari,

sed ministrare, et dare animani suam redenip-

tionem6

pro multis - - The Son of man is not

come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and

to give his life a redemption for many."And

again: "Sic enim Deus dilexit munduni, ut

Filium suum unigenitum daret* ut omnis qui

credit in eum, non pereat, sed hobeat vitam aeter-

nam God so loved the world, as to give his

only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in

him, may not perish, but may have life everlast

ing."

9St. Paul attests the same truth in some

what different terms."Qui

etiam proprio Filio

suo non pepercit," he says, "sed pro nobis omni

bus tradiditw

ilium He spared not even his

own Son, but delivered him up for us all."

The notion that Christ died for us on the Cross

assumes concrete form in the shedding of His

blood "unto the remission of sins."12 Hence

the well-known Pauline axiom, "Sine sanguinis

effusione non fit remissio 13 Without sheddingof blood there is no remission."

14Therefore,

too, subjective salvation, i. e., the application of

6 \vrpov = ransom. 11 Rom. VIII, 32.

7 Matth. XX, 28. 12 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, 28.

8 eSw/cev. is Kal xwP*s ai/J.aTKxv(rla* ov9 John III, 16. 7iWrcu a0e<rtj.

10-rraptduKev,

1* Heb. IX, 22.

8$ THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

the fruits of the Redemption to the individual

soul, is described as "the sprinkling of the blood

of Jesus Christ,"15 and the Redemption was not

"consummated" until Christ gave up the ghost.16

2. THE CONGRUITY OF CHRIST S DEATH ON

THE CROSS. It was fitting that Christ should die

for us on the Cross. The reasons are admirably

developed by St. Thomas.17 We must confine

ourselves to a summary of the most important of

them.

a) It would have been unbecoming for the Redeemer to

die of old age or disease,18 or to fall beneath the blows

of an assassin. His high office as Saviour of the human

race demanded that He should die a public death. In no

other way could He have so effectively sealed the truth of

His teaching. Nothing could have been more conducive

to the spread of His Gospel than His bloody martyrdom,which contained within itself the proof of His teaching

and power. The fact that He met death unflinchingly

gained for Him a greater number of enthusiastic ad

herents than many years of teaching could have done.

What is the poison cup that Socrates put to his lips in

comparison with the agony suffered by Jesus Christ?

His reward was proportionate to the magnitude of His

suffering. This consideration (namely, that He merited

His glorification by intense suffering) implies a profound

teleology, which may be truly termed divine.

15 i Pet. I, 2:"

aspersionem san- is developed by Tepe, Inst. Theol.,

guinis lesu Christi." Cfr. Heb. Vol. Ill, pp. 651 sqq.

IX, 13 sq. 17 S. Theol., 33, qu. 46, art. 1-4,

16 "Consummatum est." John n; qu. 47, art. 4; qu. 50, art. i.

XIX, 30. The Patristic argument 18 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,

pp. 8 1 sqq.

CHRIST S DEATH 89

b) In regard to those for whom He gave up His life,

Christ could not have selected a more congruous mannerof dying than that which He actually chose. The path of

Christian perfection runs between two poles hatred

of sin and the practice of virtue. From both points of

view the cruel drama enacted on Golgotha was eminentlyeffective. The power of sin could not be broken except

by a strong opposing force. This may be regarded either

objectively or subjectively.

a) The sin of our first parents had doomed the humanrace to spiritual death, a terrible penalty which entailed

the death of the body.19 Hence it was eminently proper

that our Divine Redeemer should by His bodily death de

stroy the spell of spiritual death and thereby restore manto that corporeal immortality which had been one of the

prerogatives of the human race in Paradise, but was for

feited by sin. There is a striking parallel also between

the first sinner s desire to be like unto God and the self-

humiliation of the Godman, between the"

tree of knowl

edge"

and the" wood of the Cross." The antithesis be

tween Christ s passion and death on the one hand, and sin

on the other, may be traced in detail. Thus the unholy

trinity of vices which we have inherited from our first

parents concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the

flesh, and pride of life received a tremendous blow bythe bitter passion and death of our Saviour, concupis

cence of the eyes in the distribution of his garments,

concupiscence of the flesh in His disrobing and scourg

ing, and pride of life in the imposition of the thornycrown and the crucifixion.

(3) Nothing could produce a more impressive idea of

the hideousness of sin than the contemplation of the

19 Cfr. Rom. V, 7 sqq.

9o THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

mangled and blood-stained body of our crucified Re

deemer.20 It is apt to soften the hardest of hearts.

He who dares to offend God in plain view of the Cross

is an atrocious villain, because, in the words of St. Paul,

he does not shrink from"

crucifying again . . . the Son

of God and making him a mockery."21 The height of

contemplation and the heroic practice of virtue to which

the medieval mystics attained by meditating on the cruel

sufferings of our Divine Redeemer, have been and still

are within the reach of all men. Like St. John many

have found by experience that love kindles love."

In

this is charity : not as though we had loved God, but be

cause he hath first loved us, and sent his Son to be a pro

pitiation for our sins."

Our crucified Redeemer is, moreover, a living and at

tractive model of all virtue. How would it be possible

for us poor weak mortals to be virtuous had we not His

glorious example to encourage us? Is there anything

a selfish, effeminate man dreads more than pain and

death ? Yet the Passion of Christ has deprived both of

their sting. St. Teresa had no other desire than either

to die or to suffer (ant mori ant pati). Death, too, so

terrible to human nature, has lost its horrors. With the

crucifix clasped in his hands and the name of the Re

deemer on his lips, the pious Christian calmly commends

his soul to the Heavenly Father. In the Cross there is

salvation, the Cross is a haven of refuge.23

20 On the extensive and intensive 22 i John IV, 10.

magnitude of our Lord s suffering 23 Cfr. the Roman Catechism,

see Cfr. Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., Vol. Part I, ch. 5, qu. 4, 145 Billuart,

IV, pp. 267 sqq.; A. Kluge, Das De Myst. Christi, diss. 9, art. i, and

Seelenleiden des Welterlosers, Mainz Oswald, Die Erlosung in Christo

J90S . Jew, Vol. II, 5, Paderborn 1887.

aiHeb. VI, 6.

CHRIST S DESCENT INTO HELL 91

ARTICLE 2

CHRIST S DESCENT INTO HELL

The Oriental and the ancient Roman versions

of the so-called Apostles Creed do not mentionChrist s Descent into hell. But the doctrine is

contained in the Spanish, Gallic, and Aquilean re

censions and in the symbol "Quicunque/ wronglyattributed to St. Athanasius. Hence the descen-

sits ad inferos is commonly regarded as an article

of faith. The Fourth Lateran Council (A. D.

1215) teaches somewhat more explicitly: "He

descended into hell, ... but He descended in

soul and arose in flesh, and ascended equallyin both/ 1

Durandus contended that the soul of Christ descended into hell dynamically but not substan

tially. This opinion was censured as heretical bySuarez. 2 And justly so; for it can be effectivelyrefuted from Sacred Scripture. The same is trueof Calvin s absurd notion 3

that Christ before andafter His agonizing death suffered the torturesof the damned.

The nature of the place into which our Lorddescended has never been dogmatically denned,

.

"

Descendit ad infernos, . . . zinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n.sed descendit in anima et resurrexit 429.)in carne: ascenditque pariter in 2 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 43,utroque." Caput "Firmiter." (Den- sect. 2, n. 7.

3 Inst., II, 16, 10.


but it is theologically certain that it was the so-

called limbus patrum (sinus Abrahae).

i. PROOF OF THE DOGMA FROM SACRED SCRIP

TURE AND TRADITION. The dogma of Christ s

Descent into hell is clearly contained both in

Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

a) Ps. XV, 10: "Non derelinques animam

meam in inferno* nee dabis Sanctum tuum videre

corruptionem Thou wilt not leave my soul in

hell, nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see cor

ruption/ This text contains a convincing argu

ment for our dogma, because St. Peter directly

applies it to Christ: "Providens [David] locutus

est de resurrectione Christi, quia neque derelictus

est in inferno neque caro eius vidit corruptionem

Foreseeing this, he [David] spoke of the resur

rection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell,

neither did his flesh see corruption."The

Greek term which the Vulgate renders by in-

fernum is &?s. It cannot mean grave, as Beza

contended, because the soul of Christ was not

buried; nor can it mean death (which is Calvin s

interpretation), because the soul of Christ did not

die. It must refer to a locality where the soul of

our Lord sojourned until it was reunited with His

"uncorrupted flesh" at the Resurrection.6

4 T*IV *vx*iv eis &8ov. 6-12; Maas, Christ in Type and

5 Acts II, 31. Cfr* Acts XIII, 35- Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 140 sqq.; Vol.

6 Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christo, IV, II, pp. 35^ sqq., esp. p. 372.


This interpretation is confirmed by the teaching of

St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians :

" Now that

he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended

first into the lower parts of the earth ?7 He that de

scended is the same also that ascended above all the

heavens, that he might fill allthings."

8 Christ s as

cension here can only mean His return to Heaven. Con

sequently, the word descend, in contradistinction to as

cend, must here be understood in a local sense. This is

rendered all the more probable by the fact that the phraseinferiores paries terrae cannot be applied to Christ s

burial, and still less metaphorically to the Incarnation.

For the rest, St. Peter, (in a somewhat obscure passage, it

is true),9

explicitly observes that the soul of Christ"

preached10

to those spirits that were in prison,"

hence it must have been substantially present in a particular place, i. e., the limbo.

b) The Tradition in support of our dogma is

as ancient as it is positive.

St. Irenaeus says :

"

For three days He dwelt in the

place where the dead were."1X Tertullian mentions

Christ s Descent into hell in several passages of his

works. We shall quote but one." Nor did He ascend

into the heights of heaven before descending into thelower parts of the earth, that He might there make the

patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself."12

St.

Augustine speaks with the authority of both Scripture

7 eis TO. KCLTwrepa pepy TTJS 7775. Adv. Haereses, V, 31, i; cfr. also8 Eph. IV, 9 sq. Adv. Haereses, IV, 27, 2.

i^Pet.Ill, 18 sqq. 12 " Nee ante ascendit in sublimi-

10<?Ki7pue,

praedicavit. ora coelorum, quam descendit in in-11 "Nunc outem tribus diebus feriora terrarum, ut illic patriarchal

conversatus est, ubi erant mortui." et prophetas compotes sui faceret."

De Anima, c. 55; cfr. also c. 4, 7.


and Tradition when he says:" Who but an unbeliever

would deny that Christ was in the nether world?" 13

2. MEANING OF THE TERM "HELL." Infer-

num (ffys, KaroWrct^ Hebrew, "*? ) may designate

either (a) hell in the strict sense of the term,

i. e., the abode of the reprobates (gehenna) ;or

(b) a place of purification after death, commonlycalled purgatory (purgatorium) ;

or (c) the

biding place of children who have died unbaptized

(limbus infantium); or (d) the abode of the

just men who lived before the coming of Christ

(limbus patnnn). To which of these four places

did Christ descend?

a) The soul of our Lord did not descend to the

abode of the damned.

Calvin s blasphemous assertion that the soul of Christ,

from the beginning of His sacred Passion in the Garden

of Gethsemane to the Resurrection, dwelled in the abode

of the damned, and there suffered the poena damni, is

based on an untenable exaggeration of the notion of

vicarious atonement.14It is not true, as Calvin held,

that Christ s Descent into hell constituted the climax.

of the atonement. The atonement culminated on the

Cross.("

Consummatum est")Nor can we conceive

of any reasonable motive why our Lord should have

descended into the gehenna of the damned. The hu

man beings confined in that awful dungeon were abso-

13 "Quis ergo nisi infidelis nega- P. L., XXXIII, 710).

verit fuisse apud inferos Christum?" i* Cfr. Bellarmine, De Christ o,

Ep. 104 ad Evodium, c. 2, 3 (Migne, V, 8.


lutely irredeemable, even as the demons themselves.16

Moreover, a personal sojourn in hell would have been re

pugnant to the dignity of the Godman. St. Augustinedoes not hesitate to stigmatize as heretical the proposition that

" When Christ descended into hell, the unbe

lieving believed and all were set free."16 The "

triumphover hell

"

which the Church celebrates in her Easter

hymns did not require the substantial presence there of

our Lord s soul; it was accomplished by His virtual or

dynamic presence, i. e., the exercise of His divine power.Certain ancient ecclesiastical writers 17 held that on the

occasion of His Descent Christ rescued from eternal tor

ture the souls of certain pious heathens, e. g., Socrates

and Plato. This theory does not contradict the dogmathat the pains of hell are eternal, as Suarez contends

;but

it must nevertheless be rejected as unfounded; first, be

cause without positive proof to the contrary we are not

permitted to assume an exception, and secondly, because

there is no ground whatever for the assumption that these

pious heathens were condemned to hell rather than rele

gated to the limbus pairurn.

b) There is another opinion, held by several

reputable theologians, viz., that the soul of Christ

appeared personally in purgatory to console the

poor souls and to admit them to the beatific vision.

We may let this pass as a"

pious opinion," provided its

defenders refrain from denying that Christ also descended

into the limbus patrum. But even with this limitation wecan hardly admit that the theory is based on sufficient

is V. supra, Sect. 2, Art. 2, The- feros credidisse incredulos et omnessis 4. e.vinde liberates." De Haer., 79.

16 "Descendente Christo ad in- 17 E. g., Clement of Alexandriaand Origen.


evidence. Two weighty arguments speak against it. It

is a fundamental law of divine justice that whoever neglects to render satisfaction in this life must inevitably suf

fer in the next (satispassio) ,and Sacred Scripture affords

no warrant for assuming that an exception was madein this instance, say after the manner of a plenary indul

gence in commemoration of the Redemption. On the

other hand it is highly improbable that all the inmates

of purgatory should have finished the process of purifi

cation at exactly the same moment. In view of these

considerations St. Thomas holds that the (merely vir

tual) presence of our Lord in purgatory resulted in noth

ing more than giving to the poor souls temporarily im

prisoned there"

the hope of an early beatitude."18 The

only exception the Angelic Doctor is disposed to make is

in favor of those" who were already sufficiently purged,

or who during their lifetime had by faith and devotion to

the death of Christ merited the favor of being released

from the temporal sufferings of purgatory on the occasion

of His descent."19

c) Was it perhaps the limbus pueromm, i. e.,

the abode of children who die in the state of orig

inal sin, into which our Saviour descended? It

is difficult to see for what reason He should have

gone there.

He could not benefit the souls of these children, be

cause they have once for all arrived at their destination.

185". TheoL, 33, qu 51, art. 3: viverent, meruerunt per fidem et

"Illis vero, qui detinebantur in pur- devotionem ad mortem Christi, ut

gatorio, spem gloriae consequendae eo dcscendente liberarentur a tern-

dedit." porali purgatorii poena." (Ibid.)

19 ". . . qui iam sufficient er pur- Cfr. Billuart, De Myst. Christi, diss.

gati erant, vel etiam qui, dum adhuc n, art. 3.


Nor can He have desired to triumph over them, be

cause the fact that they are deprived of the beatific

vision is not due to any malice on their part, but simply

and solely to original sin contracted by their descent

from Adam. As these infants are absolutely irredeem

able in virtue of Christ s voluntas salmfica consequens,

we cannot even assume the existence of a special priv

ilege in their favor. That which is impossible cannot

be made the subject-matter of a privilege, not even at so

solemn a juncture as the death of our Saviour.21 Their

fate does not involve cruelty nor injustice on the part

of God, because, though deprived of the beatific vision,

they enjoy a certain measure of natural happiness.22

d) Consequently, the only place to which the

soul of Christ can have descended during the

triduum intervening between His death and the

Resurrection, is the limbus patrum, sometimes

also called "bosom of Abraham/

The limbus patrum was the place in which the patriarchs and just men of the Old Testament, together

with those heathens who had died in the state of grace,

after having been cleansed from all stain of sin in purga

tory, dwelled in the expectation of the beatific vision.

That such a place existed we conclude from Heb. IX, 8 :

" The way into1 the holies [i. e., Heaven]23 was not yet

20 V. supra, Sect. 2, Art. 2, The- neque per fidem parentum out persis 4. aliquod fidei sacramentum [soil, bap-

21 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, tismum] fuerant a peccato originali

qu. 52, art. 7: "Pueri autem, qui mundati. Et idea descensus Christi

cum originali peccato decesserant, ad inferos huiusmodi pueros non li-

ttullo modo fuerant coniuncti pas- beravit ab inferno."

sioni Christi per fidem et dilec- 22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the

tionem. Neque enim fidem pro- Author of Nature and the Super-

priam habere potuerant, quia non natural, pp. 300 sqq.

habuerunt usum liberi arbitrii, 23 Cfr. Heb. X, 19.


made manifest, whilst the former tabernacle [i. e., the

Old Testament] was yet standing," We may also infer

the (former) existence of such a place from the fact that

Holy Scripture adverts to a state of imprisonment as an

intermediary stage on the way to Heaven.

3. SPECULATIONS REGARDING THE LOCATION

OF THE LIMBO. The word limbo, which is de

rived from limbus, properly signifies edge or bor

der. It owes its use as a technical term in theol

ogy to the ancient belief that the abode of the

patriarchs was situated on the confines of hell,

somewhere near the surface of the earth. Dante

and Milton place the limbo at the outermost circle

of hell.24 Since the geocentric has been sup

planted by the Copernican world-view, we knowthat the ancient notions of "above" and "below"

are purely relative. Hence the traditional view

with regard to the site of hell and the limbo does

not appertain to the substance of dogma. The

meagre data furnished by Revelation do not

enable us to draw up a topographical map of

the nether world. We know no more about the

whereabouts of hell than we know about the

location of what was once the limbo of the

Fathers. The theological arguments of certain

Scholastic writers, based on the geocentric con

ception of the universe, can claim no probability,

much less certitude.25

24 Milton, Paradise Lost, III, 440 25 On the limbo see P. J. Toner

gqq. in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol.


4. THE SOTERIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF

CHRIST S DESCENT INTO HELL. Christologicallyour Lord s Descent into hell must be conceived

as an intermediary stage between glorification

and abasement. It partook of abasement in

|respect of the external circumstance of place, but

it did not entail upon His human nature anysubstantial or intrinsic alteration.

26 From the

soteriological point of view the question as to

the meaning of Christ s Descent into hell re

solves itself into another, namely, What was its

object or purpose?What can have been our Saviour s purpose in

visiting the patriarchs ? We may safely assumethat His descent stood in some sort of relation to

the redemption of the human race which He had

just accomplished. It must have aimed at their

beatification, for the limbo contained no reprobates. St. Paul applies the text Ps. LXVII, 19:"Ascendens in altum captivam duxit captivita-tem "

to the inmates of the limbo, as if hewished to say: Ascending into Heaven Christ

leads away with Him those who had been imprisoned in the limbo.

27

We are informed of the object of our Lord s Descent into the limbo by St. Peter, who says in his

IX, pp. 256 sqq.; Mamachi, De 26 Cfr. H. Simar, Dogmatik, Vol.Animabus lustorum in Sinn Abrahae I, 3rd eel., p. 538, Freiburg 1899.ante Christi Mortem, Rome 1706. 27 Cfr. Eph. IV, 8.

ioo THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

first Epistle:28

"[Christ was] put to death indeed in

the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, in which also cominghe preached to those spirits that were in prison :

29 which

had been some time incredulous,30 when they waited for

the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark

was a-building." This text is admittedly difficult of in

terpretation ;

31 but despite a certain obscurity, its general drift is discernable. The Apostle evidently meansto say that Christ personally approached

32 the spirits or

souls of those who were imprisoned in the limbo and

preached33 to them. What and why did he preach to

them? To assume that He tried to convert the damnedwould contradict the revealed truth that there is no

salvation for those condemned to hell. Can it have

been His purpose to assure them of their damnation?

This hypothesis is equally untenable, because a little fur

ther down in his text St. Peter expressly describes

Christ s preaching (/ofcvy/xa) as a"gospel,"

which meansa message of joy.

"

Ne/cpois ew/yyeAt o-tf??,"these are his

words "

the gospel was preached to the dead."34 The

"

gospel"

which our Lord preached to the inmates of

limbo must have been the glad tidings that their im

prisonment was at an end. But whom does St. Peter

mean when he speaks of"

those spirits . . . which had

been some time incredulous, when they waited for the

patience of God in the days of Noe"? This is a diffi

cult question to answer. But no matter how we maychoose to interpret the subsidiary clause, the main sen

tence is plain enough. Among the just imprisoned in the

limbo there were also (/cat) some who had abused God s

28 i Pet. Ill, 18 sqq. 31 Cfr. St. Augustine, Ep. ad29 ev & /cat rots ev

<^uXa/c^fEvod., 164.

irvevfjiCKriv iropevOels eicf]pvev.32

iropevtieis.30

diretOriaacriv irore- 33eKripv&v, praedicavit,

34 i Pet. IV, 6.

THE RESURRECTION 101

patience before the Deluge by remaining incredulous till

the flood overtook them.35 The "

gospel"

or joyful mes

sage which Christ brought to the inmates of limbo cannot

have consisted in anything more than the preliminary

announcement that they were soon to be freed;for their

formal admission into the heavenly abode of the Blessed

did not take place till the day of His Ascension.36 Never

theless, in view of our Lord s remark to the penitent

thief: "This day thou shalt be with me in paradise,"

we must hold that the patriarchs were forthwith ad

mitted to the beatific vision of God.37

ARTICLE 3

THE RESURRECTION

i. THE RELATION OF CHRIST S RESURRECTION

TO His DEATH. Christ s glorious Resurrection

may be considered from three distinct points of

view.

Apologetically, i. e., regarded as a historic fact

establishing His Divinity, it is the bulwark of our

faith1 and the pledge of our own future resurrec

tion.2

Christologically, the Resurrection signalizes

35 Cfr. Hundhausen, Das ersie l i Cor. XV, 14.

Pastoralschreiben des Apostelfiir- i2 i Cor. XV, 13. For an apol-

sten Petrus, pp. 343 sqq., Mainz ogetic treatment of the Resurrec-

1873. tion we refer the student to De-36 Cfr. Ps. LXVII, 19. vivier-Sasia, Christian Apologetics,37 Cfr. the Catechism of the Vol. I, pp. 197 sqq., San Jose, Cal.,

Council of Trent, Part I, Ch. 6, Qu. 1903; G. W. B. Marsh, The Resur-

6. The reasons why it was meet rcction of Christ, Is it a Fact?

that Christ should descend into hell London 1905; and other similar

are developed by St. Thomas, 5". treatises.

Theol., 3a, qu. 52, art. i.


Christ s entrance into the state of glory which

He had earned for Himself by His passion and

death.3

Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of

Soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ was not,

strictly speaking, the chief, nor even a contrib

uting cause of our redemption ;

4 but it was an

essential complement thereof, and constituted its

triumphant consummation.

a) The Catholic Church regards the Resurrection as

an integral, though not an essential, element of the atone

ment. That is why she mourns on Good Friday and cele

brates Easter as the great feast of the Redemption."

Lastly," says the Roman Catechism,5

". . . the Resur

rection of our Lord was necessary, in order to completethe mystery of our salvation and redemption ;

for by his

death Christ liberated us from our sins, and by His

Resurrection he restored to us the principal blessings

which we had forfeited by sin. Hence it is said by the

Apostle : He was delivered up for our sins, and rose

again for our justification. That nothing, therefore,

might be wanting to the salvation of the human race, it

was meet that, as He should die, He should also rise

again." This teaching is in perfect accord with Sacred

Scripture, which links the crucifixion of our Lord with

His Resurrection and represents both events as one in

divisible whole. Cfr. Luke XXIV, 46 sq. :

"

Thus it is

written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise

3 Cfr. Luke XXIV, 26. V. su- the Cross. (Cfr. supra, pp. 85 sqq.)

pn, PP- 58 sq. r, Part I, Ch. 6, Qu. 12.

4 The sole cause of our redemp- 6 Rom. IV, 25.

tion was the Saviour s death on


again from the dead, the third day, that penance and

remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all

nations."7

b) St. Paul deepened this conception by pointing out

that the Crucifixion and the Resurrection contain the two

essential elements of justification remission of sin and

infusion of a new life. As Christ died and rose again from

the dead, so shall we die to sin and arise to spiritual life.

Cfr. Rom. VI, 6 sqq. :

"

Knowing this, that our old manis crucified with him, that the body of sin may be de

stroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer. For

he that is dead is justified from sin. Now if we be dead

with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with

Christ: knowing that Christ rising again from the dead,

dieth now no more." The Apostle loved to apply this

sublime symbolism to the Sacrament of Baptism ,in

which the acts of immersion and emersion emblem both

the burial and Resurrection of Christ, and the liberation

from sin and sanctification of the sinner. Cfr. Rom. VI,

4 :

"

For we are buried together with him by baptisminto death

;that as Christ is risen from the dead by the

glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of

life."8

2. THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AS A DOGMA.

The glorious Resurrection of our Lord is a

cardinal dogma, nay the very foundation and

keystone of Christian belief. For this reason the

7 Cfr. St. Bonaventure, Comment. 8 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 15. On the sub-

in Quatuor Libras Sent., Ill, dist. ject-matter of this subdivision the

19, art. i, qu. i: "Ratio merendi student may profitably consult St.

iustificationem attribuitur soli pas- Thomas, vS". Theol., 33, qu. 56, art.

sioni, non resurrectioni; ratio vero 2 and H. Simar, Die Theologie des

terminandi et quietandi attribuitur hi. Paulus, 2nd ed., pp. 194 sqq.,

resurrectioni, ad quam ordinatur Freiburg 1883.

ittstificatio, non passioni."


phrase "on the third day He arose again" wasembodied in all the creeds and reiterated in nu

merous doctrinal definitions.

The Catholic Church has always emphasizedtwo distinct points in regard to the Resurrection,

vis.: (i) Its reality or truth, and (2) the

transfigured and glorified state of the risen Redeemer. To safeguard these two aspects of the

dogma she strenuously insisted on the real re

union of Christ s soul with His body,9 and form

ally rejected the Origenist teaching of the ethereal

nature and sphericity of the risen body as well

as the heresy of its alleged corruptibility. Thusthe Council of Constantinople (A. D. 543) says:

"If any one assert that the body of our Lord

after the Resurrection was ethereal and spherical

in shape, ... let him be anathema." Andthe symbol of Pope Leo IX declares that Christ

arose from the dead on the third day "bya true

resurrection of the flesh, to confirm which Heate with His disciples not because He stood in

need of food, but solely by His will and power."n

All these statements can be convincingly demonstrated from Divine Revelation.

a) Christ had positively predicted that Hewould arise on the third day (cfr. Matth. XII, 40;

9 Cfr. Cone. Lateran. IV , Caput reum et figura sphaerica, anathema

"Firmiter" (supra, p. 91). sit." Denzinger s Enchiridion, gth10 "Si quis dixerit Domini corpus ed., n. 196.

post resurrectionem fuisse aethe- n Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 344.


XX, 19; XXVII, 63; Mark X, 34; Luke XVIII,

33; John II, 18 sqq.). He proved the reality

and the truth of His resurrection by repeatedly

appearing to His disciples, conversing with them,

allowing them to touch His sacred body, eating

and drinking with them, and so forth. (Matth.

XXVIII, 17 sq.; Luke XXIV, 41 sqq.; John

XX, 24 sqq.; i Cor. XV, 6). The Apostles

would not have so courageously and uncompro

misingly stood up for their faith in the Resur

rection had they not seen and conversed with

the risen Lord. Cfr. Acts IV, 33: "And with

great power12 did the Apostles give testimony

of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord."13

Though not an eye-witness, St. Paul was a bold

and enthusiastic herald of the Resurrection : "If

Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching

vain, and your faith is also vain/14

That Christ rose in a glorified body is evi

denced by the circumstances surrounding His

Resurrection,15 and by the fact that His risen

body was endowed with certain attributes which

man cannot enjoy except in a transfiguredstate.

16

12dvvd/jiei fjLeydXrj, virtute magnd. 15 Matth. XXVIII, i sqq.; Luke

13 Cfr. Acts II, 22 sqq.; Ill, 15; XXIV, 36 sqq.; John XX, 19 sqq.

X, 40 sqq.; XIII, 30 sqq. 16 This point will be developed in

14 i Cor. XV, 14; cfr. Rom. X, 9. Eschatology.

io6 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

He retained the marks of His five wounds 17 for reasons

of congruity, which St. Thomas explains as follows :

"

It

was becoming that the soul of Christ in the Resurrection

should reassume the body with its wounds. First, for the

glorification of Christ Himself; secondly, to confirm His

disciples in their faith in the Resurrection ; third, that in

supplicating the Father for us, He might always remind

Him of what He had suffered for men;fourth to recall

the divine mercy to those whom He had redeemed, by ex

hibiting to them the marks of His death; and, lastly, that

on Judgment day He might show forth the justice of the

judgment by which [the wicked] are damned."18

That Christ really and truly rose from the dead in a

glorified body, is so evident from Sacred Scripture that

we need not stop to prove it from Tradition. 19

b) In connection with the Resurrection of our

Lord the Catholic Church has always held two

other important truths, viz.: ( i ) That His Res

urrection is the prototype of a general "resurrec

tion of the flesh/ and (2) that Christ arose byHis own power.

Both these truths are clearly taught in the famous

Creed drawn up by the Eleventh Council of Toledo

(A. D. 675) :

" And on the third day, raised up by His

17 Cfr. John XX, 27; Apoc. V, 6. tulerit, semper ostendat; quarto ut

18 S. TheoL, 33, qu. 54, art. 4: sua morte redemptis, quam miseri-

"Conveniens fuit animam Christi in corditer sint adiuti, propositis eius-

resurrectione corpus cum cicatrici- dem mortis indiciis insinuet; po-

bus resumere : primo quidem propter stremo ut in iudicio [ultimo], quamgloriam ipsius Christi . . .; secundo iuste damnentur, ibidem denuntiet."

ad confirmandum corda discipulorum 19 On the whole subject cfr. Billu-

circa fidem suae resurrectionis; ter- art, De Myst. Christi, diss. 12, art.

tio ut Patri pro nobis supplicans, 4 and 6; G. B. Tepe, Inst. TheoL,

quale genus mortis pro homine per- Vol. I, pp. 97 sqq., Paris 1894-.


own power, He rose again from the grave ; by virtue ofthis example of our Head we profess that there will be aresurrection of the flesh for all the dead."

20 The phrase

"byHis own power" (mrtute proprid) points to an ac

tive rising (resurgere), which is more than a miraculous

awakening (resuscitari) .

The dogma is clearly contained in Sacred Scripture.Cfr. John II, 19: "Jesus answered and said to them:

Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it

up."

21John X, 17 sq.: "Therefore doth the Father

love me: because I lay down my life, that I may takeit again. No man taketh it away from me: but I layit down of myself, and I have power to lay it down:and I have power to take it up again."

22

Christ Himself ascribes this power to His consubstan-

tiality with the Father. John V, 21: "For as theFather raiseth up the dead, and giveth life : so the Sonalso giveth life to whom he will."

23Hence, if Holy

Scripture elsewhere speaks of our Lord s being raised upby the Father,

24this is obviously an appropriation, based

on the fact that the efficient cause of our Saviour s Resurrection was not His humanity, which had been resolvedinto its constituent elements by death, but His Divinity,which remained hypostatically united with His soul andbody. The Roman Catechism explains this as follows:

>l

There existed a divine energy as well in the body, bywhich it might be reunited to the soul, as in the soul, bywhich it might return again to the body, and by which He,

20 "Tertio quoque die virtute pro- 21e7e/?w, excitabo.

pria sua suscitatus a sepulcro resur- 22 $ Vfflco> ex iraXiv \aBeivrexit; hoc ergo exemplo capitis no- avTyv.stri confitemur veram fieri resurrec- 23 6 vlbs ovs 0e\ fwoTroiei.tionem carnis omnium mortuorum." 24 Acts II, 24 sqq.; Ill, 13 sqq.;Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 286. Rom. VIII, u; Gal. I, i.

8

io8 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION

by His own power, might return to life and rise again

from the dead."25

READINGS :*Billuart, De Incarnatione, diss. 19-20. IDEM, De

Mysterio Christi, diss. 9-12. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, aa,

qu. 19-22; qu. 24, 26; qu. 46-56. Bellarmine, De Christo, 1. IV,

c. 6-16; 1. V, c. i-io. De Lugo, De Mysterio Incarnation**,

disp. 27 sqq..* Franzelin, De Verbo Incarnate, sect. 4, Rome

1881. Oswald, Soteriologie, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1887.* Stentrup,

S. J., Soteriologia, 2 vols., Innsbruck 1889. G. B. Tepe, Insti-

tutiones Theologicae, Vol. Ill, pp. 617 sqq., Paris 1896. Chr.

Pesch, S. J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. IV, 3d ed., pp. 201 sqq.,

Freiburg 1909. Hunter, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol.

II, pp. 506 sqq., London s. a. Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of

Catholic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 181-195, 2nd ed., London 1901.

A. Ritter, Christus der Erloser, Linz 1903.* B. Dorholt, Lehre

von der Genugtuung Christi, Paderborn 1896. Muth, Heilstat

Christi als stellvertretende Genugtuung, Ratisbon 1904 . K. Staab,

Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugtuung, Paderborn 1908.

Pell, Lehre des hi. Athanasius von der Sunde und Erldsung,

Passau 1888 Strater, Erldsungslehre des hi Athanasius, Frei

burg 1894. Weigl, Heilslehre des hi Cyrill von Alexandrien,

Mainz 1905.*!. Riviere, Le Dogme de la Redemption, Paris

1905 (English translation, The Doctrine of the Atonement, 2

vols., London 1909). E. Hugon, O. P., Le Mystcre de la Re

demption (a speculative pendant to Riviere s Le Dogme de la

Redemption, which is mainly historical), Paris 1911. H. N.

Oxenham, The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement: An His

torical Inquiry into its Development in the Church, London 1865.

(This work, which has been lately translated into French, must

be read with caution. Cfr. La Civilta Cattolica, Quad. 1431, Feb.

5, 1910). J. Kleutgen, S. J., Theologie der Vorzeit, Vol. I, 2nd

ed., pp. 336 sqq., Miinster 1870 (against Gunther). Friedlieb,

Leben Jesu Christi des Erlosers mit neuen historischen und

chronologischen Untersuchungen, Paderborn 1887. Grimm, Le

ben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien, 7 vols., 2nd ed., Ratisbon

25 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 6, qu. 8: set, qua et licuit sua virtute revivis-

"Divina vis turn in corpore inerat, cere atque a mortuis resurgerc."

qua animae iterum coniungit, turn Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat,,

in anima, qua ad corpus reverti pos- Vol. IV, pp. 280 sqq.


1890 sqq. Didon, O. P., Jesus Christ, English edition, London1895. J. E. Belser, Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens, der

Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt des Herrn, Freiburg 1903. W.Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, London s. a. A. J. Maas,S. J., Christ in Type and Prophecy, Vol. II, pp. 13 sqq., NewYork 1895. G. W. B. Marsh, Messianic Philosophy, pp. 24sqq., London 1908. Freddi- Sullivan, S. J., Jesus Christ theWord Incarnate, pp. 191 sqq., St. Louis 1904. J. Tixeront, His-tolre des Dogmes, Vol. II, 3rd ed., pp. 148 sqq., 285 sqq., 376 sqq.,Paris 1909.

See also the references in Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp. 7 sq.,St. Louis 1913.

* The asterisk before an author s name indicates that his treatmentof the question is especially clear and thorough. As St. Thomas is in

variably the best guide, the omission of the asterisk before his name nevermeans that we consider his work in any, way inferior to that of otherwriters. There are vast stretches of theology which he scarcely touched.

PART II

THE THREE OFFICES OF THEREDEEMER

The Redemption, considered as an objective

fact, must be subjectively appropriated by each

individual human being. Hence three functions

or offices on the part of our Divine Redeemer, ( I )

that of High Priest, (2) that of Prophet or

Teacher, and (3) that of King.

no

CHAPTER I

CHRIST S PRIESTHOOD

SECTION i

CHRIST S DEATH A TRUE SACRIFICE

The present Chapter is chiefly concerned with

demonstrating, ( i ) that the death of Christ wasa true sacrifice, and (2) that He Himself was a

true priest. It is these facts which give to the

Redemption its sacerdotal and hieratic stamp andfurnish us with the key to the philosophy of the

atonement.

i. DEFINITION OF THE TERM "BLOODY SACRIFICE/ A sacrifice is "the external offering upof a visible gift, which is destroyed, or at least

submitted to an appropriate transformation, by a

lawful minister in recognition of the sovereigntyof God and in order to appease His anger."

a) This definition, which will be more fully explainedin the dogmatic treatise on the Holy Eucharist, embraces

four essential elements :

(a) A visible gift and its physical or moral destruc

tion or transformation, such as the slaughtering of an

in

ii2 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

animal, the burning of cereals, the pouring out of a

fluid, etc.

(/?) A lawful minister or priest who offers the gift to

God.

(y) An exterior act of worship, consisting in the phys

ical presentation of the gift.

(8) A final end or object, which is the acknowledgmentof God s supreme dominion and the appeasement of His

anger.

Applying the Scholastic distinction between materia

and forma, we find that the materia remota of a sacrifice

is the visible gift itself, its materia proximo,, the act of de

struction or transformation, and its forma, the sacrificial

act (actio sacrifica), which combines and unifies both

the external offering of the visible gift and the intrinsic

purpose for which it is offered. This intrinsic purpose

or object is the main factor, because it informs and de

termines the external act, just as the human soul informs

and determines the body. Without a genuine intention

on the part of the sacrificing priest there is no sacrifice.1

b) The twofold purpose of every sacrifice is the ac

knowledgment of God s supreme dominion and the ap

peasement of His anger.

The first of these objects is attained by adoration, the

second by expiation.

Adoration is the formal element of every sacrifice, i. e.,

that which essentially constitutes it a sacrifice in the

strict sense of the term. Expiation does not enter into

the essence of sacrifice, but is a merely secondary

factor, because conditioned by the accidental fact of sin.

Since both thanksgiving and supplication, when addressed

to the Almighty, invariably and necessarily partake of the

l Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., za aae, qu. 85, art 2.

SACRIFICE 113

nature of absolute worship, sacrifices offered up for these

two purposes have no relation to sin. The case is differ

ent with expiatory sacrifices. While sin has neither abol

ished nor debased, but rather reinforced, the main pur

pose of adoration, namely thanksgiving and supplication,

it has added a new object which, though in itself second

ary, has become inseparable from the notion of sacrifice

in consequence of the Fall.

These considerations explain the usual division into

sacrifices of adoration (sacrificia latreutica), sacrifices of

thanksgiving (sacrificia eucharistica) , sacrifices of sup

plication or petition (sacrificia impetratoria), and sacri

fices of expiation or propitiation (sacrificia propitiatoria).

As these four objects can never be entirely separated,

the various kinds of sacrifice owe their specific appella

tions solely to the special emphasis laid on the principal

purpose for which each is offered.

c) A most important element in the concept of sac

rifice is the symbolic substitution of some other creature

for man." The gift takes the place of the giver. By

sacrificing an object over which he has control, and

offering it up entirely to God, man acknowledges God s

overlordship over his person and life, and it is the latter

which is symbolically offered up and destroyed."2

This symbolism is based on the very nature of sac

rifice. The acknowledgment of God as the sovereignLord of the universe has its human correlative in

man s humble subjection and surrender of himself to

his Maker. The most precious gift which man has re

ceived from God is life. Since he cannot surrender this

-God demands no human sacrifices He offers it upsymbolically by destroying or transforming and present-

2 Jos. Dahlmann, S. J., Der Idea- sophie im Zeitalter der Opfermystik,lismus der indischen Religionsphilo- p. 22, Freiburg 1901.


ing in his own stead some living or inanimate creature.

This vicarious act assumes its deepest significance in the

sacrifice of propitiation, by which, in addition to manifest

ing the sentiments already mentioned, man confesses his

guilt and admits that he has deserved death in punishmentfor his sins. It is in this sense that St. Thomas explains

the Old Testament holocausts." The slaughtering of ani

mals," he says,"

signifies the destruction of sins and that

men are deserving of death for their sins, as if those ani

mals were killed in their stead to denote the expiation

of their sins."3 The ethical significance of sacrifice is

based on this same consideration. The highest act of

divine worship, coupled as it ever should be with sin

cere contrition and an ardent desire to be reconciled to

God, cannot but elevate, cleanse, and sanctify the human

heart, especially in view of the fact that God s will to

save all men and the legitimate institution of the sacri

ficial rite confirm human expectation and constitute a rich

source of consolation.

d) The Sacrifice of the Cross is not only a true

sacrifice, but in contradistinction to the sacri-

ficium incruentum (Hebrew, n9) specifically a

bloody sacrifice. What constitutes the differ

ence between the two? It cannot be the person of the lawful minister, nor yet the final

object of all sacrifice (except in so far as propitiation must plainly be the prevailing motive of

every bloody sacrifice). Hence we shall have to

3 S. Theol., la 2ae, qu. 102, art. animalia loco eorum occiderentur ad3, ad 5: "Per occisionem anima- significandam expiationem peccato-lium significatur destructio pecca- rum." Cfr. N. Giehr, The Holytorum et quod homines erant digni Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 35 sqq.,

occisione pro peccatis suis, ac si ilia 3rd ed., St. Louis 1908.

A BLOODY SACRIFICE 115

seek for the specific difference in the materia and

forma.

The materia remota of a bloody sacrifice, as its veryname suggests, must be a living creature endowed with

blood (yictima, hostia). Its materia proximo, is the

slaying of the victim, accompanied by an effusion of

the life-giving fluid (mactatio cum sanguinis effusione).

In regard to the physical forma there is room for a differ

ence of opinion, as we do not know for certain whether

the sacrificial act (actio sacrifica), strictly so called, is

the slaying of the victim or its oblation. The latter

opinion is the more probable, though not certain. First,

because the act of slaying, as such, with its con

sequent shedding of blood, does not necessarily indicate

the purpose of the sacrifice, and consequently requires a

more specific determinant, i. e., the act of oblation.

Secondly, because in the Mosaic sacrifice the victim was

slain by laymen and temple servants, while the oblation

of the blood was a function reserved to the lawfully

appointed priesthood.4

Third, because it is impossible

to assume that Christ s bloody sacrifice on the Cross con

sisted in the material acts of cruelty committed by His

barbarous executioners.

Hence a bloody sacrifice must be defined as"

the visible

oblation of a living creature, the slaying of which is

accompanied by the shedding of blood, by a lawful min

ister, in acknowledgment of the supreme sovereignty of

God, and especially to propitiate His anger."5

2. THE DOGMA. The Church has formally

defined, against the Socinians and the Rationalists,

4 Cfr. P. Scholz, Die hi. Alter- 5 Cfr. Becanus, De Triplici Sacri-

tiimer des Volkes Israel, II, 134 ficio, Naturae, Legis, Gratiae, Opusc.

sqq., Ratisbon 1868. II, Lugduni 1631.

Ii6 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

that Christ s vicarious atonement was a bloody

sacrifice, made for the purpose of reconciling

the human race to God (sacrificium propitiato-

rium. )

The Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) declared against

Nestorius :

" For He offered Himself up for us as an

odor of sweetness to God the Father. Hence if any one

say that the Divine Logos Himself was not made our

High Priest G and Apostle ... let him be anathema."T

The Council of Trent, in defining the Holy Sacrifice

of the Mass, bases its definition on the dogma that

Christ s bloody death on the Cross was a true sacrifice:

"

Though He was about to offer Himself once on the

altar of the Cross unto God the Father . . . that He

might leave a visible sacrifice . . . whereby that bloody

sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the Cross, might be

represented, . . . He offered up to God the Father His

own body and blood under the species of bread and

wine ... [In the Mass] that same Christ is contained

and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered

Himself in a bloody manner on -the altar of the Cross.

. . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now

offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered

Himself on the Cross, the manner alone of offering be

ing different."8

6 dp^ie/Jed- sacrificium, quo cruentum illud

7 "Obtulit enim semetipsum pro semel in cruce peragendum reprae-

nobis in odorem suavitatis Deo et sentarctur, . . . corpus et san-

Patri. Si quis ergo Pontificem et guinem suum sub speciebus panis

Apostolum nostrum dicit factum et vini Deo Patri obtulit. . . . [In

non ipsum Dei Verbum . . ., ana- Missa] idem ille Christus . . . in-

thema sit." Synod. Ephes., can. 10. cruente immolatur, qni in ara crucis

(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 122.) semel seipsum cruente obtulit . . .

8 "Etsi semel seipsum in ara cru- Una eademque est hostia, idem nunc

cis morte intercedente Deo Patri afferent sacerdotum ministerio, qui

oblaturus erat, . , . ut relinqueret seipsum tune in cruce obtulit, sola


a) The Scriptural proof of our dogma is based

partly on the Old and partly on the New Testa

ment.

) The argument from the Old Testament

may be stated in the terms of a syllogism, thus:

The sacrifices of the Old Law, which were almost

exclusively bloody oblations, culminated in the

idea that the Israelite, conscious of having de

served death for his sins, substituted brute ani

mals in his own stead and offered them to God as

a means of propitiation. Now all the sacrifices of

the Old Law were merely types of Christ s death

on the Cross. Therefore Christ s death must be

as truly a vicarious sacrifice of blood and propitia

tion as were the sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Proof of the Major Premise. There is no need of dem

onstrating the proposition that the Old Testament sacri

fices were true sacrifices, as this is denied by no one. That

the Jews practiced symbolic substitution is obvious from

the sacrificial rites which they employed. Aside from cer

tain unbloody oblations of altogether minor importance

they offered three different kinds of sacrifices : burnt offer

ings, peace offerings, and offerings for sin. All three

required the imposition of hands on the head of the

victim to symbolize that the sins of the people were

heaped upon it. Thus, when the multitude had trans

gressed a divine command through ignorance, they

had to bring a sin-offering to the door of the taber-

offerendi ratione diversa." (Cone, 940; cfr. also can. 3-4, ibid. n. 950,

Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. i and 2 951.)

Denzinger Bannwart, No. 938 and


nacle in the shape of a calf. Lev. IV, 13-20: "And

the ancients of the people shall put their hands upon

the head thereof before the Lord; and the calf being

immolated in the sight of the Lord, the priest that is

anointed shall carry off the blood into the tabernacle of

the testimony. . . . And the priest praying for them,

the Lord will be merciful unto them." On the Feast

of Expiation two buck goats were led up to the door

of the tabernacle, and one of them was slain as a

sin offering. With regard to the other the Mosaic

law ordained as follows :

" Then let him [the high

priest] offer the living goat: and putting both hands

upon his head, let him confess all the iniquities of the

children of Israel, and all their offences and sins: and

praying that they may light on his head, he shall turn

him out by a man ready for it, into the desert. Andwhen the goat hath carried all their iniquities into an

uninhabited land, and shall be let go into the desert,

Aaron shall return into the tabernacle of the testimony."9

What was thus symbolized in the sacrificial rite is ex

plicitly set forth in the prohibition of blood, Lev. XVII,n : ". . . the life of the flesh is in the blood: and

I have given it to you, that you may make atonement

with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood maybe for an expiation of the soul." The text we have

previously quoted from Isaias (Is. LIII, 4 sqq.), derives

its deeper significance from the sacrificial rite described

by the same prophet (Is. LII, 15; LIII, 7, io).10

Proof of the Minor Premise. The minor premise of

our syllogism can be demonstrated from St. Paul s Epis

tle to the Hebrews, particularly Chapters 8 to io. As

the Old Law had but"

a shadow of the good things to

Lev. XVI, 9; XVI, 20 sqq. bauer, Erklarung des Propheten10 Supra, p. 46. Cfr. Knaben- Isaias, Freiburg 1881.


come,"1X so in particular its sacrifices merely prefigured

the one great sin-offering on the Cross. Being" weak

and needy elements," it was impossible that"

the blood

of oxen and goats"

should"

take away sin."12 The

student will be able to appreciate the full force of this

argument only after a careful perusal of the whole Epistle. If the Mosaic sacrifices were real and vicarious,

this must be true in a far higher sense of the sacrifice

of the Cross, which they foreshadowed. 13

P) The argument from the New Testament is

based on the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its

explicit assertion that the typical sacrifices of the

Old Law found their consummation and perfection in the one true sacrifice of the Cross. In a

variety of phrases St. Paul reiterates the funda

mental truth that, as priest and victim in one per

son, Jesus Christ by a single bloody offeringatoned for the sins of men and once for all con

summated their eternal salvation.

To quote only a few salient passages :

"

For if the

blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of an heifer

being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the

cleansing of the flesh: how much more shall the blood

of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself un

spotted unto God,14 cleanse our conscience from dead

works to serve the living God ?" 13 " So also Christ

was offered once to exhaust the sins of many."16 "

In

11 Heb. X, i. 14 tavrbv Trpoa^veyKev12 Heb. X, 4. Cfr. Gal. IV, g. r <5 Gew.13 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 15 Heb. IX, 13-14.

carnato, thes. 49, Rome 1881; Hugo ie #7ra irpoffevexQels els rb iro\-

Weiss, Die messianischen Vorbilder \u>v dveveyKeiv apaprtas- Heb.im Alien Testament, Freiburg 1905. IX, 28.

120 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

the which will we are sanctified by the oblation of the

body of Jesus Christ alone."17 "

But this man [Christ]

offering one sacrifice for sins,18 for ever sitteth on the

right hand of God."19 "

For by one oblation 20 he hath

perfected for ever them that are sanctified."21

The sacrificial character of the death of our

Divine Lord is expressly inculcated in many other

passages of the New Testament.

Cfr. Matth. XX, 28:"

Filius hominis non venit

ministrari, sed nrinistrare et dare animam snam redemp-tionem pro multls 22 - The Son of man is not come to be

ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a

redemption for many." Christ here emphasizes three

momenta, viz.: sacrifice, atonement, and the vicarious

character of that atonement." To give one s life

" 23is a

distinctly hieratic and sacrificial term ;

"

for many" 24

denotes vicarious satisfaction, and "

redemption" 25 in

dicates expiation. It follows from this important text

that the expression"

for many"

or"

for all,"

26 which

occurs so frequently in the New Testament, when used

in connection with sacrifice means, not only"

for the

benefit of many," but also"

instead of many." Cfr.

Eph. V, 2 :

"

Tradidit semetipsum pro nobis oblationem

et hostiam Deo 27 in odorem suavitatis Christ . . .

hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice

to God for an odor of sweetness."28

I Tim. II, 6:

17 Heb. X, 10. 24 avrl TTO\\WV, not merely virlp18 fnav VTrep a/jLapnuv irpocrevty- TroXXwy.

KO.S Ovatav- 25 \vrpov (strictly, ransom).19 Heb. X, 12. 26

inrep 7rd\\uv, pro multis.

20mq. yap Trpoffcfiopa.

27Traptdwicev eavrbv inrep ij/Jiuv

21 Heb. X, 14. Trpoff(f)opav itai 6vo~iav-

22 /cat dovvai ryv ^v^v avrov 28 irpoafyopa here means sacrifice

\vrpov dvrl TroXXdJj/. n general, 0vffia> bloody sacrifice.

23 SoVVCLl TT]V


"

Qui dedit redemptionem semetipsum pro omnibus,29

testimonium temporibus suis Who gave himself a re

demption for all, a testimony in due times." Referring

to the Old Testament sacrifice of the Paschal lamb, St.

Paul says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians (V, 7) :

"

Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus For Christ

our pasch is sacrificed." The expiatory character of

our Lord s death is expressly asserted in Rom. Ill, 25 :

"

Quern proposuit Deus propitiationem30

per fidem in

sanguine ipsius Whom God hath proposed to be a

propitiation, through faith in his blood," and likewise in

the first Epistle of St. John (II, 2) :

"

Ipse est propi-

tiatio31

pro peccatis nostris, non pro nostris autem

tantum, sed etiam pro totius mundi He is the propitia

tion for our sins : and not for ours only, but also for

those of the whole world."32

b) Christian Tradition has from the first faith

fully adhered to the obvious teaching of Holy

Scripture in this matter.

The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which was prob

ably composed at the time of the Emperor Nerva (A. D.

96-98),33 contains the following passage: "For our

sins he was going to offer the vessel of the spirit \_i. e.,

His sacred humanity] as a sacrifice,34 in order that the

type established in Isaac, who was sacrificed upon the

altar, might be fulfilled."35 Tertullian expresses himself

in a similar strain :

"

Christ, who was led like a sheep to

296 Softs eavrov avri\VTpov virtp32 Cfr. 2 Cor. V, 21.

iravraV AvTiXvrpov here means 33 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa-

a ransom given vicariously, by a trology, p. 24.

representative. 34 e/^eXXe . . . TrpoffQepeiv Ovalav.30

iXaffrripiov= ft sacrifice of pro- 35 Ep. Barn., c. 7, n. 3. (Ed.

pitiation. Funk, I, 23.)


the slaughtering pen, had to be made a sacrifice for all

nations."36

3. THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Christ vicari

ously made atonement for us by immolating Him

self; consequently, He is priest, acceptant, and

victim all in one. This gives rise to a number of

subtle theological problems, which in the main

may be reduced to three: (a) Was it in His

Godhead or manhood that Christ combined the

double function of victim and priest? (b) In

what sense did He simultaneously offer and

accept the sacrifice of the Cross? (c) Wherein

precisely did the actio sacrifica of His bloodysacrifice consist?

a) The first question must be decided on

Christological principles as follows. The victim

(victima, hostia) of the sacrifice of the Cross wasthe Godman, or, more specifically, the Divine

Logos in person, though not, of course, throughthe functions of His Divine, but those of His

human nature.

To assert that the human nature of our Lord alone

was sacrificed on the Cross would be equivalent to Nes-

torianism. To hold that it was the Godhead as such

that was crucified and sacrificed, would savor of Theo-

paschitic Monophysitism. Both heretical extremes are

avoided by saying that the Divine Logos was indeed

86 Adv. lud., c. 13. For other Genugtuung Christi, 7-10, Pader-Patristic texts bearing on this sub- born 1891.

ject see Dorholt, Die Lehre -von der

THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 123

sacrificed (principium quod), but only according to His

passible manhood (principium quo). This propositionis an immediate deduction from the dogma of the

Hypostatic Union.

A similar answer may be given to the cognate question :

In what way did Christ officiate as a priest? In other

words, Did He offer the sacrifice of the Cross (i. e., Himself) to God in His human or in His Divine Nature?

The correct answer depends on a true conception of

the nature of the Hypostatic Union. Nestorius believed

that Jesus Christ .and the Logos-Son were two separateand distinct persons, and hence he was entirely consistent

in teaching that the man Jesus alone was a high priest, to

the exclusion of the Divine Logos.37 The same con

clusion was forced upon the Socinians, who denied the

Trinity and consequently also the Divinity of JesusChrist. Though the Monophysites held a diametrically

opposite opinion, they too were perfectly consistent in

regarding the Divine Nature of Christ as the instrument

of mediation, redemption, and the priesthood; for they

imagined Christ s humanity to have been absorbed and

destroyed by His Divinity. We cannot, however, regardwithout surprise the illogical attitude of certain older

Protestant divines, who, despite their orthodox teachingon the Hypostatic Union, either showed Nestorian lean

ings, as e. g. Francis Stancarus (d. 1574), or, like cer

tain Calvinists and Zwinglians in Switzerland, adoptedthe Monophysitic view that Christ was our Mediator and

High Priest qua Logos and not qua man.38 The truth

lies between these extremes. The Godman was a true

priest, not, however, in His divine, but solely in His

human nature.39

37 Cfr. Concilium Ephes., can. 10. V. supra, p. 116.38 For details consult Bellarmine, De Christo, V, 2-3.39 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol, 33, qu. 22, art. 2.

9


b) The second question is: How are we to

conceive the relation of Christ in His capacity as

sacrificing priest, to Christ as the Divine Logos,

to whom the sacrifice of the Cross was offered?

To solve this problem correctly we shall have to

bear in mind the truths set forth in the first part

of this treatise with regard to the mediatorshipof our Lord.40

It will not do to represent the first Person of the

Blessed Trinity as the sole acceptor of the sacrifice of

the Cross, and Christ merely as the sacrificing priest,

though this opinion has found some defenders amongCatholic divines. It was the Trinity, or God qua God,who had been offended by sin

; consequently the sacrifice

of the Cross had to be offered up as a propitiation to

the entire Trinity. Hence Christ not only offered upthe sacrifice of the Cross, but He also accepted it, thoughof course only in His capacity as God, conjointly with the

Father and the Holy Ghost. The Patristic phrase,

adopted by the Council of Trent, that Christ"

offered

Himself unto God the Father," must therefore be ex

plained as an appropriation.41

From what we have said it appears that Christ exer

cised in a most wonderful manner three distinct func

tions, viz.: that of sacrificial victim, that of the sacrificing

priest, and that of the accepting God. As God He ac

cepts His own sacrifice; as Godman (or Logos) He is

both victim (victima) and sacrificing priest (sacerdos),

though only according to His human nature. St. Augustine

40 Supra, pp. 5 sqq. Preuss, The Divine Trinity, pp. 244

41 V. supra, pp. 67 sq. On the sqq.

Divine Appropriations see Pohle-

THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS 125

beautifully explains this in his famous work De Civitate

Dei." And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by as

suming the form of a servant, He became the Mediatorbetween God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in

the form of God He received [accepted] sacrifice to

gether with the Father, with whom He is one God, yetin the form of a servant He chose rather to be than

to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance anyone might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should

be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the

Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered."42

c) As regards the sacrificial act itself, it did

not formally consist in the killing of the victim.

To hold that it did, would involve the blasphemousconclusion that the sacrificing priests on Calvary werethe brutal soldiers who tortured our Lord and nailed

Him to the Cross. No, the real priest was Jesus Christ

Himself; His executioners were merely unconscious in

struments in the hands of Providence.

If Christ was the sacrificing priest, it follows that

He alone performed the sacrificial act.

This sacrificial act did not consist in self-immolation.

That would have been sheer suicide. It consisted in the

voluntary oblation of His Blood, which He allowed to

be shed (extrinsic factor) and which He offered to Al

mighty God with a true sacrificial intent (intrinsic factor).It was this voluntary oblation of His life and blood

42 De Civ. Dei, X, 20. "Verus -forma servi sacrificium maluit esseille mediator, inquantum formant quam sumere, ne vel hoc occasioneservi accipiens mediator effectus est quisquam existimaret cuilibet sacri-Dei et hominum, homo Christus ficandum esse creaturae. Per hoc et

lesus, quum in forma Dei sacrificium sacerdos est, ipse offerens, ipse etcum Patre sumat [accept et], cum oblatio." (Cfr. De Trinit., IV, 14,quo et unus Deus est, tamen in 19).


(oblatio vitae et sanguinis) which constituted the formal

element, and consequently the essence of the sacrifice of

the Cross.43

This also explains why martyrdom is not a true sac

rifice. It has not been instituted as such by God, and,

furthermore, no martyr can dispose of his life and blood

with the sovereign liberty enjoyed by our Lord, who had

absolute control over all the circumstances surrounding

His death and gave up His soul when and how He

pleased.44

43 Cfr. John X, 18. gelium des hi. Johannes, pp. 511

44 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- sqq., Freiburg 1905.

carnato, thes. 50; Belser, Das Evan-

SECTION 2

CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST

"

Priest"

and"

Sacrifice"

being correlative terms,

the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ is a logical and

necessary corollary of His sacrifice on the Cross. Sacred Scripture expressly confirms this deduction.

The concept of"

priesthood"

embraces two essential

elements, vis.: (i) unction or ordination, and (2) the

offering of sacrifice. To these may be added, as an

integral part, sacerdotal prayer. In the case of Christ,

moreover, the Bible lays special stress (3) on the eter

nity of His priesthood. We shall develop these consid

erations in the form of three separate theses.

Thesis I : Christ s unction or ordination to the office

of high priest took place at the moment of His In

carnation.

This thesis voices the common teaching of

Catholic divines.

Proof. If, as we shall show in our next thesis,

Christ was truly "a priest according to the order

of Melchisedech,"1 His priesthood must have

begun simultaneously with His Incarnation, i. e.,

at the moment in which the Divine Logos as

sumed human flesh in the womb of the Virgin.The Divine Logos could not have been a priest be-

iHeb. V, 6; VI, 20.

127


fore His Incarnation, because then He was not

yet the Godman. Nor was He anointed or conse

crated by any special act subsequent to His Incar

nation. Hence His ordination must have coin

cided with the inception of the Hypostatic Union.

This view is confirmed by St. Paul in his Epistle to

the Hebrews. Heb. X, 5 :

"

Ideo ingrediens mundum2

dicit: Hostiam et oblatiqnem noluisti, corpus autem

aptasti mihi Wherefore when he cometh into the

world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest

not : but a body thou hast fitted to me."3 Here the

"

fitting of a body"

for the sacrifice of the Cross,

and consequently the beginning of Christ s priesthood, is

represented as coincident with His "

coming into the

world," i. e., His conception.

In the fifth chapter of the same Epistle the Apostle

emphasizes the fact that "every high priest taken from

among men, is ordained for men in the things that apper

tain to God," and then declares that Christ did not or

dain Himself, but was "

called by God." Heb. V, 4 sq. :

"Nee quisquam sumit sibi honorem, sed qui vocatur a

Deo 4tamquam Aaron; sic et Christus non semetipsum

clarificaznt, ut ponitfex fieret,5 sed qui locutus est ad eiim

[= Pater] : Filius meus es tu, ego hodle genui te

Neither doth any man take the honor to himself, but

he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also

did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high

priest; but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son,

this day have I begotten thee."6 The "call" to the

priesthood which Christ received from His Father was

2elffepxo/J-evos els TOV Koff^ov-

5 yevydrjvai3 Cfr. Ps. XXXIX, 7.

6 Heb. V, 4 sq.

4 KO\OVfJiVOS O.TTO TOV QtOV-

CHRIST A TRUE PRIEST 129

the command to redeem the human race. This commandwent into effect at the moment of His conception. Con

sequently, Christ s priesthood began simultaneously with

the unio hypostatica.

A third argument for our thesis is based on the Sa

viour s proper name, Christus, which means the Anointed

One KOLT e|ox^v.T Whereas the Levites of the Old Testa

ment were anointed to the ministry by an accidental

unction with visible oil,8 the Godman Jesus Christ,

by virtue of the Hypostatic Union, is substantially

anointed with the invisible oil of Divinity. This sub

stantial unction, on account of the object and pur

pose of the Redemption, stands in intimate relation

ship to the priestly function which He exercised in offer

ing the sacrifice of the Cross, and therefore the Hypo-static Union as such must be regarded as Christ s

substantial ordination to the priesthood.

Some of the Fathers appear to teach that our Lord s

ordination took place before His Incarnation. It is to

be noted, however, that their manner of expression is

distinctly proleptic. What they mean is, that it was byHis Incarnation that the not yet incarnate Logos was

constituted a priest. Certain other Fathers seem to

regard Christ s baptism in the Jordan as the beginning of

His priesthood. Rightly understood, however, these

Fathers do not assert that Christ became a high priest

when He received baptism, but merely that he exercised

His priesthood for the first time on that occasion. There

is a clear-cut distinction between an office and the exer

cise of its functions; the former differs from the latter

as potency differs from act.9

7 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 9 Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., XII,

pp. 228 sq. 3 and n.8 Cfr. Exod. XXIX, i sqq.; Lev.

VIII, i sqq.


Thesis II : During His terrestrial life Christ was a

true high priest who exercised His sacerdotal func

tions by offering sacrifice and prayer.

This proposition embodies an article of faith.

Proof. The Council of Trent defines : "Quo-

niam sub priori Testamento teste Apostolo Paulo

propter levitici sacerdotii imbecillitatem consum-

niatio non erat, oportuit Deo Patre misericor-

diarum ita ordinance sacerdotem aliuni secundum

ordinem Melchisedech surgere D. N. lesum Chri

stum, qui posset omnes, quotquot sanctificandi es-

sent, consummare et ad perfectum adducere."

Anglice : "Forasmuch as, under the former Testa

ment, according to the testimony of the Apostle

Paul, there was no perfection, because of the

weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was

need, God the Father of mercies so ordaining,

that another priest should rise, according to the

order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ,

who might consummate, and lead to what is per

fect, as many as were to be sanctified."10

The heretical antithesis of this dogma is the

Socinian teaching that the priesthood of our Lord

was in no sense an earthly but exclusively a

heavenly priesthood.11

a) That the priesthood of our Divine Lord

10 Cone. Trid., Sess. XXII, cap. i. 11 Cfr. F. Socinus, De Christo

(Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 938.) Servatore, P. II, c. 15.


was really and truly an earthly priesthood can

easily be proved from Sacred Scripture.

) To begin with the Old Testament, we needbut point to Psalm CIX, the Messianic character

of which is guaranteed by Christ Himself. 12 Thefourth verse reads as follows: "Thou art a

priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech." Melchisedech was an earthly priest;

consequently the priesthood of Christ must be an

earthly priesthood.13

/?) The prophet Isaias, pointing to the "Man

of sorrows," i. e., the future Messias, presagesthat "he shall sprinkle many nations."

14 This

sprinkling, from the context, can only meana sacrificial sprinkling with blood (aspersio san-

guinis).15

y) No other sacred writer has portrayed the

earthly priesthood of our Lord so grandly as St.

Paul, whose Epistle to the Hebrews constitutes

one prolonged refutation of Socinianism. 16 Thegist of this Epistle may be summarized as

follows: The priesthood of Melchisedech wasfar superior to the Levitical priesthood, butthe priesthood of Christ is infinitely superior even

i2Matth. XXIII, 43 sqq. 15 Cfr. Is. LIII, 3 sqq.; Lev.13 On the heresy of the Melchise- XVI, 18 sq.; Heb. IX, 14 sqq.

dechians (who held that Melchise- ie A detailed analysis of St.dech was not a man but an incarna- Paul s Epistle to the Hebrews willtion of the Logos) see St. Augus- be found in Franzelin, De Verbotine, De Haeres., n. 34; cfr. Blunt, Incarnate, thes. 48, n. ii; cfr. alsoDictionary of Sects, pp. 304 sq., Chr. Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., Vol.new impression, London 1903. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 291 sq.

LII, 15.

i 32 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

to the priesthood of Melchisedech. Therefore,

Christ is the holiest, the greatest, the most perfect,

in fact the sole High Priest, and He exercised His

priesthood in the perfect sacrifice of the Cross.17

b) But the sacrifice of the Cross was not the

only sacerdotal function performed by our Divine

Redeemer. He also officiated as High Priest

when, at the Last Supper, He instituted the Holy

Sacrifice of the Mass, and when He pronounced

the sublime prayer for His disciples recorded

in the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of St.

John.18

A priest does not always pray in his official capacity

as priest; some of his prayers are strictly private and

personal. It is only when he pronounces portions of the

sacrificial rite, such as the Mass, or liturgical prayers inti

mately connected therewith, as those of the Breviary, that

his prayer assumes a sacerdotal or hieratic character.

Christ s prayer for His disciples was a strictly sacerdotal

or hieratic act, because of its intimate relation to the sacri

fice of the Cross. The same is true of the prayers which

He uttered at the crucifixion. It is rather difficult to draw

a clear-cut line of demarcation between strictly hieratic

and purely private prayers in the case of our Divine Lord,

because His whole interior life was inseparably inter

woven with His mission as the Saviour of mankind, and

therefore also with His priesthood. However, we may

apply the term"

private"

in a wider sense to those

17 The Patristic argument for our hood may be best studied in St.

thesis is developed by Pesch, op. cit., Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, qu.

pp. 292 sq. The teaching of the 22 art. i.

Scholastics on Christ s earthly priest- 18 John XVII, 1-26.


prayers which He offered up, not for His Apostles, or

the human race in general, but for Himself, in order to

obtain personal favors from His Heavenly Father, as, for

instance, when He asked on Mount Olivet that the chalice

be removed from His lips/9 or when He petitioned for

His own glorification.

There is an essential difference between prayer and

sacrifice, which should be emphasized here. Christ wasVable to pray for Himself, but He was not able to offer

sacrifice for Himself. This has been clearly defined bythe Council of Ephesus (A. D. 431) :

"

If any one . . .

assert that He [Christ] offered Himself as a sacrifice

for Himself, and not rather for us alone, (for He whoknew absolutely no sin needed no sacrifice), let him be

anathema."20

Thesis III: Christ s priesthood continues everlast

ingly in Heaven.

This proposition also embodies an article of

faith.

Proof. In Christology21 we concluded from

the eternity of Christ s priesthood to the insep

arability of the Hypostatic Union. Here wehave to prove the antecedent. The eternity of

Christ s priesthood is an article of faith, because

clearly contained in Sacred Scripture. But the

manner in which He exercises His sacerdotal

19 Cfr. Heb. V, 7. Bannwart, n. 122). On Christ s

20 "

Si quis . . . dicit, quod pro praying cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol,se obtulisset semetipsum oblationem, 3a, qu. 21 and L. Janssens, Deet non potius pro nobis solis (non Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 720 sqq.,

enim eguit oblatione, qui peccatum Freiburg 1901.

omnino nescivit), anathema sit." 21 Pohle-Preuss, Christology, pp.

Cone. Eph., can. 10 (Denzinger- 74 sqq.


office in Heaven remains to be determined by the

ological reasoning.

a) The eternity of our Lord s priesthood is

taught both directly and indirectly in St. Paul s

Epistle to the Hebrews.

a) The Apostle expressly applies to Christ the Messianic verse :

:< Thou art a priest for ever 22according to

the order of Melchisectech."23 That "

for ever"

in this

passage means eternity, not a parte ante but a parte post,

and in the strict sense of the term, appears from St.

Paul s way of arguing in Heb. VII, I sqq., where he

opposes our Lord s"

everlasting priesthood"

to the tem

poral priesthood of the Levites. Moreover, he distinctly

says in Heb. VII, 23 sq. :

"

Alii quidem plures facti sunt

sacerdotes, idcirco quod morte prohiberentur permanere;hie autem eo quod maneat in aeternum** sempitcrnumhabet sacerdotium 25 And the others indeed were made

many priests, because by reason of death they were not

suffered to continue : but this, for that he continueth for

ever, hath an everlasting priesthood."

) Regarding the manner in which Christ ex

ercises His eternal priesthood in Heaven, Revela

tion teaches us nothing beyond the fact that Heis "always living to make intercession for us/

26

which is a truly sacerdotal function, because, as

St. Paul assures us, it bears an intimate relation

to the sacrifice of the Cross. Hence we may22 fls rov aiwva- 25 aTrapafiarov X t T*l v

23 Ps. CIX, 4. ai)viiv.24 5to TO /j,eveiv avrbv els r6v 26 Heb. VII, 25; Rom. VIII, 34.

al&va-


conclude that our Lord s intercession for us in

Heaven consists in everlastingly asserting the

sacrifice of the Cross.

Cfr. Heb. VII, 24 sqq. :

"

Sempiternum habet sacer-

dotium; unde et salvare in perpetuum poiest accedentes

per semetipsum ad Deum, semper vivens ad interpel-

landum pro nobis: tails enim 27 decebat ut nobis esset

ponttfex?* . . . qui non habet necessitatem quotidie

. . . hostias offerre; hoc enim fecit semel seipsnm offer-

endo [He] hath an everlasting priesthood, whereby he

is able also to save for ever them that come to God

by him; always living to make intercession for us. For

it was befitting that we should have such a high priest

. . . who needeth not daily ... to offer sacrifices . . .

for this he did once, in offering himself."

St. John, too, describes Christ s heavenly intercession

as intimately connected with and based upon the sacri

fice of the Cross. Cfr. i John II, I sq. :

"

Sed et si

qiiis peccaverit, adz ocatum 29 habemus apud Patrem

lesum Christum iustum; et ipse est propitiatio30

pro

peccatis nostris But if any man sin, we have an advo

cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: and he is

the propitiation for our sins." The same Apostle in the

Apocalypse represents Christ figuratively as a slain lamb,

i. e., a transfigured sacrificial victim. Apoc. V, 6 :

"

Et

vidi . . . Agnum stantem tamquam occisum 31 And I

saw ... a Lamb standing as it were slain." In this light

St. Ambrose s conception of the relation existing between

Christ s heavenly intercession and the marks of the five

wounds in His glorified body, as indelible witnesses

y&p.30 JXacyios

= a sacrifice of pro-

pitiation.

81<*>s


of His bloody sacrifice, must appeal to us as profoundly

significant :

" He refused to relinquish the woundswhich He had received for us, but preferred to take

them with Him to Heaven, in order to exhibit [them] to

His Heavenly Father [as] the purchase price of our

liberty."32

b) The doctrine of Christ s eternal priesthoodin Heaven has given rise to three separate theo

logical problems: (a) What is the precise nature of His everlasting intercession for us? (/?)

Does He continue to offer a true sacrifice in

Heaven? (y) How can His priesthood endure

after the Last Judgment, when His intercession

must of necessity cease?

) Theologians are not agreed as to whetherChrist s heavenly intercession for the humanrace is to be conceived as merely implicit (inter

pretative*), or as explicit (formalis).

The former view is held by Vasquez and Thomassin,the latter and more probable one by Petavius. AsChrist actually prayed for us while on earth, there is noreason to assume that His continued intercession in

Heaven is silent or merely implicit, especially in view ofthe promise which He gave His Apostles that He wouldask the Father to send them another Paraclete. Cfr.

John XIV, 16: "And I will ask the Father, and heshall give you another Paraclete." Why weaken theterm

"

ask "

or"

petition"

(rogare, ipurSv) to prop the

32 St. Ambrose, In Luc., X, n. ut Deo Patrl nostrae pretia liberta-170: "Vulnera accepta pro nobis tis ostenderet."

coelo inferre maluit, abolere noluit,


doubtful hypothesis that His intercession is merely vir

tual ?

Certain of the Fathers seem to contradict the view de

fended by Petavius. But the construction put upon their

utterances by Vasquez and Thomassin is untenable. In

reality these Fathers merely wish to emphasize the fact

that the theandric prayer of Jesus has none of the de

fects necessarily inherent in purely human prayer, such

as indigence, a feeling of helplessness and guilt, an ap

peal to mercy, etc. The theandric intercession of our

heavenly Advocate is based upon the infinite satisfaction

which He has given for us, and hence is in no wise

an humble supplication for grace, but a confident asser

tion of His merits on behalf of those whom He has re

deemed. This is one of the reasons why the Church

does not pray or instruct her children to pray :

" Lord

Jesus, intercede for us !

"

but :

"

Christ, hear us !

"

"

Christ, have mercy on us !

" 33

/?) Our second question, it may be well to

premise, has nothing whatever to do with the So-

cinian error that Jesus offered no true sacri

fice on earth but became the High Priest of hu

manity only after His Ascension into Heaven.

Accepting the sacrificial character of His death,

theologians merely ask: Does He continue to

offer a true sacrifice for us in Heaven?

Thalhofer 34 answered this question in the affirmative,

and his view has been adopted by L. Zill35 and P.

33 Cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In- 34 Das Opfer des Alien und Neuen

carnato, thes. 51, n. iii; De Lugo, De Bundes, pp. 201 sqq., Ratisbon 1870.

Myst. Incarnationis, disp. 27, sect. 35 Der Brief an die Hebrder, pp.

4, n. 61 sqq. 430 sqq., Mainz 1879.


Schoulza.36 The purpose of these writers in taking the

position they do is twofold: (i) to gain a basis for a

reasonable explanation of the metaphysical essence of

the Sacrifice of the Mass, and (2) to give a tangible con

tent to the Scriptural teaching of Christ s eternal priest

hood.

Thalhofer declares the formal element of sacrifice to

consist, not in the exterior oblation of the victim, which is

in some manner or other transformed, but solely in the

interior disposition of the sacrificing priest. But this

theory is contrary to the common teaching of Catholic

divines and does not square with certain generally ad

mitted facts. Granted that the disposition of the sac

rificing priest is the intrinsic and invisible forma, and

consequently the most important part of a sacrifice; yet

it can never supply the extrinsic physical form. Christ s

constant pointing to His wounds, of which Thalhofer

makes so much, is merely a significant gesture which

effects no intrinsic transformation of the kind strictly

demanded by the notion of sacrifice. Zill attempted to

construct a Scriptural basis for Thalhofer s theory, but

his deductions had already been substantially refuted by

Tournely in his argument against Faustus Socinus.37St.

Paul, far from asserting that Christ offers sacrifice in

Heaven, or that He continues His earthly sacrifice there,

expressly declares that our Lord merely asserts ad mo-

dum interpellationis and forever the sacrifice He has

once for all consummated on the Cross. This interpella

tion can in no wise be construed as a sacrifice.38

86 Liturgia Catholica Fidel Magis- 38 Cfr. F. Stentrup, Soteriologia,

tra, Insulis 1901. thes. 82; Pesch, Prael. Dogmat*,37 Tournely, De Incarn., qu. 5, Vol. IV, 3rd ed., pp. 300 sqq.

art. 2\ cfr. Franzelin, De Verbo In-

carnato, p. 539.


y) There remains the third question: Howcan Christ s priesthood endure forever, since

after the Last Judgment not only the hypotheticalsacrifice construed by Thalhofer, but likewise Hisintercession for us must needs cease?

There can be no doubt whatever that our Lord s

priestly intercession in Heaven will end with the last

Mass celebrated on earth. Nevertheless, His priesthoodwill continue, in a threefold respect, (i) He will re

main "

a priest for ever"

in dignity (secundum digni

tatem), because His sacerdotal character stands or falls

with the Hypostatic Union, and consequently is indelible

and incapable of being lost.39

(2) Christ s priesthoodendures eternally in respect of its effectiveness (secun-dum effectum), in so far as the fruits of the sacrifice

of the Cross are unceasingly renewed in the grace and

glory enjoyed by the Elect in Heaven. 40(3) Christ

remains the eternal High Priest of humanity secundumaffectum; for, while He does not offer up a perpetualsacrifice in the strict and proper sense of the term, Hecauses a sweet burnt-offering of unending adoration and

thanksgiving to rise before the throne of the Most HolyTrinity, which is after all the ultimate purpose andend of all creation.

39 Cfr. Thesis I, supra, pp. 127 sacrificii consequuntur. Finis autent

s^- sacrificii quod Christus obtulit, non40 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 33, fuerunt bona temporalia, sed

qu. 22, art. 5: "In officio sacerdotis aeterna, quae per eius mortem adi-duo possunt considerari: primo qui- piscimur." L. c., ad 2:

"

Licet pas-dem ipsa oblatio sacrificii, secundo sio et mors Christi de caetero nonipsa sacrificii consummatio, quae sint iteranda, tamen virtus illius

quidem consistit in hoc, quod illi hostiae semel oblatae permanet infro quibus sacrificium offertur, finem aeternum."

10

CHAPTER II

CHRIST S PROPHETICAL OFFICE

i. DEFINITION OF THE TERM "PROPHET."

The word "Prophet"is etymologically derived

from the Greek verb *p6<faiu> to say beforehand,

to foretell (Hebr. P =vates, seer). In a

wider sense it signifies a teacher (magister,

; Hebr. ^ = speaker, orator).1

The Bible employs the term Prophet in both mean

ings, most frequently however in the latter. Old Testa

ment prophetism was not limited to extraordinary pre

dictions of future events, but comprised primarily the

ordinary teaching office, which was clothed with di

vine authority and exercised by instruction, admonition,

warnings, and threats. The so-called prophetic schools

of the Jews were colleges founded for the training of

professional teachers of religion, not of prophets in the

strict sense of the term.2

To say that Christ exercised the office or func

tion of a prophet, is equivalent to saying that

He possessed in the highest degree the gift of

prophecy (donum prophetiae) and the vocation

1 Cfr. Maas, Christ in Type and in Libras V. T., Vol. II, pp. 267

Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 82 sqq. sqq., Paris 1887; Maas, op. cit.,

2 Cfr. R. Comely, Introd. Spec. Vol. I, 108 sqq.

I4O

CHRIST A TRUE PROPHET 141

of a teacher (magisterium) . Soteriology deals

with Him only as a teacher.

2. THE PROPHETIC TEACHING OFFICE OFCHRIST. The Old Testament prophets hailed the

future Messias as a teacher of truth, and when

Jesus Christ appeared in Palestine, He actuallyexercised the functions of a teacher in the mostexalted sense of the term.

a) Moses, who both as the founder of a religion anda teacher par excellence, is a prominent type of the

Messias, uttered the famous prophecy registered in Deut.

XVIII, 15 :

" The Lord thy God will raise up a prophet3

of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me : him thou

shalt hear."4 This passage is expressly applied to Christ

in the New Testament. 5

Isaias foretells that the coming Messias will deliver

humanity from sin and error. Is. LXI, I sq. :

" Thespirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord hath

anointed me : he hath sent me to preach to the meek, to

heal the contrite of heart, and to preach a release to the

captives, and deliverance to them that are shut up; to

proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the dayof vengeance of our God: to comfort all that mourn."

Christ Himself publicly read this passage in the syna

gogue at Nazareth, and when he had folded the book,

3X"3J Christ, whom heaven indeed must

receive, until the times of the resti-Cfr. Deut. XVIII, 18. tution of all things, which God hath

5 Acts III, 22 sqq. "Be penitent, spoken by the mouth of hig ho]ytherefore, and be converted, that

prophets, from the beginning of theyour sins may be blotted out; that world . For Moses said: A prophetwhen the times of refreshment shall shall the Lord your God raise upcome from the presence of the Lord, unto you of your brethren> iike untoand he shall send him who hath me: him you shall hear> ^ t

been preached unto you, Jesus

I42 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

said (Luke IV, 21): "This day is fulfilled this scrip

ture in your ears."6

b) The New Testament has confirmed the ful

filment of the Old Testament prophecies. It has

also demonstrated their truth. When Jesus was

engaged in recruiting His disciples, Philip said to

Nathanael: "We have found him of whomMoses in the law, and the prophets did write,

Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth."7

It was

with the utmost confidence that our Lord appealed

to Moses : Think not that I will accuse you to

the Father. There is one that accuseth you,

Moses, in whom you trust. For if you did be

lieve Moses, you would perhaps believe me also;

for he wrote of me."8 After He had fed five

thousand people with a few loaves of bread, those

who had witnessed the miracle enthusiastically

exclaimed: This is of a truth the prophet that

is to come into the world."9 When He had

raised the widow s son to life, there came a fear

on those about Him, "and they glorified God,

saying : A great prophet10

is risen up among

us; and, God hath visited his people."

c) Christ exercised His teaching office by jour

neying about Palestine and preaching the glad

tidings of salvation.

6 Cfr. Matth. V, 5.9 6 TT/XN^TTJS 6 epxofJ-evos els rbv

1 John i, 45. Kharkov- John VI, 14.

8 John V, 45 sq. 10irpocfr fjTrjs

11 Luke VII, 1 6.


St. Matthew records that"

the people were in admira

tion at his doctrine; for he was teaching them as one

having power, and not as the scribes and Pharisees."12

He presented Himself as the absolute Teacher of truth.

Cfr. John XVIII, 37: "For this was I born, and for

this came I into the world, that I should give testimonyto the truth." For it was "

His Father" who spoke

through Him,13 and He Himself was "

the way, and the

truth, and the life."14

Consequently, there can be no

other teacher beside or above Him :

"

Neither be ye called

masters;for one is your master,

15Christ."

16 Acknowl

edging Him as the sovereign teacher of mankind, Nico-

demus says :

"

Rabbi, we know that thou art come a

teacher from God;for no man can do these signs which

thou dost, unless God be with him."17 Even so great

a teacher as St. John the Baptist literally paled in the

glorious halo which encircled the Divine Master :

" Hewas not the light, but was to give testimony of the

light."

18

Nor must we forget the power of our Saviour s ex

ample, which more effectively even than His words

prompted men to embrace the truth and lead a virtuous

life. Fully realizing that"

Example serves where pre

cept fails," St. Luke in writing his Gospel, as he him

self admits,19 was chiefly concerned with the things

which"

Jesus began to do and to teach."20 That it was

the Redeemer s express purpose to set a good exampleis manifest from His own declaration in John XIII, 15:"

For I have given you an example,21 that as I have

12 Matth. VII, 28 sq. 18 John I, 8. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss,13 Cfr. John XIV, 10; XVII, 8. Christology, pp. 31 sqq.; H. Schell,

14 John XIV, 6. Jahve und Christus, pp. 403 sqq.,

15 Magister, /ca^^Tjrrjs. Paderborn 1905.

16 Matth. XXIII, 10. Cfr. John 19 Acts I, i.

XIII, 13- 20 iroielv re Kdl Si8dffKi9>

17 John III, 2. 21


done to you, so you do also." St. Paul strongly insists

on the importance of our being made comformable to

the image of the Son of God,22 and did not rest until

Christ had been formed in all his hearers.23 Christ

was the beau-ideal of virtue, because He was without sin ;

and His example was most effective, because He was im

pelled by supreme charity. This accounts for the inex

haustible power which flows from the"

Imitation of

Christ" and never ceases to purify, ennoble, energize, and

rejuvenate men and to lead them on to moral perfection.

In confirmation of this truth we need but point to the

lives of the Saints.2 *

d) For an adequate theological explanation of

the singular greatness and perfection of Christ s

prophetical office we must go to its fountain-

head, the Hypostatic Union.

a) Endowed with a fulness of knowledge unparalleled

in the history of the human race, Jesus was in a position

to propound His teaching with absolute certainty and ir

resistible conviction. 25Equipped with miraculous pow

ers and the gift of prophecy, He was able to confirm and

seal His words by signs and miracles. As the super

natural Head of grace, He was in the altogether unique

position of one able to enlighten his hearers with the torch

of faith and to fire their hearts with His grace. In all

three of these respects He has absolutely no peer amongmen, and it is sheer folly to compare Him with Socrates

22 Rom. VIII, 29. ing of the Fathers consult Petavius,

23 Gal. IV, 19. De Incarn., II, 10; Stentrup, Soteri-

24 Cfr. S. Raue, O. F. M., Chri- ologia, thes. 134 sqq.

*tus als Ersieher. Eine methodische 25 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,

Studie iiber das hi. Evangelium, and PP- 249 sqq.

ed., Freiburg 1902. For the teach-


or even with the greatest of the prophets, Moses and Johnthe Baptist

/?) Nor can it be urged as an argument against the

sublimity of His prophetical office, that Jesus addressed

Himself only to the Jews of Palestine. He had excellent

reasons for confining His personal activity to that particular nation and country. We will enumerate four of the

principal ones given by St. Thomas.26(i) He had to

fulfil the promises which God had made to the Jews in

the Old Testament. (2) It was becoming that the Gos

pel should reach the gentiles through the instrumentalityof God s Chosen People. (3) Jesus had to pay due re

gard to the peculiar mentality of the Jewish nation. (4)The method He chose was better adapted than any other

to demonstrate the triumphant power of the Cross. After

His Resurrection He sent out His disciples to teach and

baptize all nations, and when He had ascended into

Heaven, He appointed a special Apostle for the gentiles.

His teaching was as open and public as the scene of His

activity. Unlike the pagan philosophers, He made no

distinction between esoteric and exoteric truths. His

motto was :

" That which I tell you in the dark, speak

ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear,

preach ye upon the housetops."27

y) Our Divine Lord had very good reasons for dis

daining to consign His heavenly teaching to books. It

eminently befitted His high office as Teacher of mankind to employ the most perfect mode of teaching,

namely oral instruction, which goes straight to the heart

and reaches all, even those who are unable to read. It wasfor this same reason, in the opinion of St. Thomas, that

He commanded His Church to instruct by word of mouth

26 S. TheoL, 33, qu. 42, art. i.

27 Matth. X, 27. Cfr. St. Thomas, S. TheoL, 33, qu. 42, art. 3.


and constituted oral tradition a source of faith side byside with Sacred Scripture. Some of the wisest menof antiquity (e. g., Socrates and Pythagoras) exercised a

tremendous influence over succeeding generations without

ever having recourse to the stylus or the pen. Oral in

struction was admirably adapted to the propagation of

Christianity. Had our Lord presented His teaching in

the form of bookish lore, consigned to parchment or papy

rus, it would have become a veritable apple of discord.

Then again, in the words of St. Thomas,"

those whorefused to believe what the Apostles wrote, would not

have believed Christ Himself had He consigned His doc

trines to writing.":

3. THE ECCLESIASTICAL MAGISTERIUM A CONTINUATION OF CHRIST S PROPHETICAL OFFICE.

As the priesthood of our Divine Lord is con

tinued on earth by the celebration of the HolySacrifice of the Mass and the administration of

the Sacraments, especially Holy Orders, so His

prophetic office is continued by the magisteriumof the Catholic Church.

a) The very fact that Christ established a Church to

teach"

all nations"

shows that He wished her to continue

His prophetical office. He guaranteed her His special

assistance and promised to be with her"

all days, even to

the consummation of the world."29

Having established

her as a teacher, He sent her the Spirit of Truth, who

28 S. TheoL, 1. c. On the apoc- Les Origines de TEglise d Edesse et

ryphal correspondence between our la Legende d Abgar, Paris 1888; H.Lord and Abgar, King of Edessa, Leclerq, art. "Abgar" in the Catholic

cfr. R. A. Lipsius, Die edessenische Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 42 sq.

Abgarsage kritisch untersucht, 29 Matth. XXVIII, 20.

Braunschweig 1880; J. Tixeront,


informs and vivifies her as the soul informs and actuates the body, and enables her to keep the deposit of faith

intact against all attempts at diminution or distortion.

Thus the infallibility of the Church and of her SupremePontiff ultimately rests upon the prophetic office of Christ

Himself, who is the infallible source and teacher of all

truth. 30

b) This explains why the Church participates in the

prerogatives of the prophetic office as exercised by herDivine Founder. As the faithful custodian of the depositof faith she teaches the whole truth. There is no higher

magisterium conceivable than hers. The "spiritual

church"

expected by the Montanists and the"

Johan-nine church "

imagined by some modern heretics are

pure figments. Christianity is the absolute religionand cannot be measured by the inadequate yardstick of

comparative science. The Catholic Church, through her

connexion with Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, enjoysa truly divine authority, by which she proclaims with

infallible certainty the dogmas of faith and morals andcondemns heretical errors whenever the necessity arises.

Her anathemas are as truly binding on all men as her

dogmatic definitions. Finally, she is endowed with unlimited adaptability, which enables her to adjust herself to

all times and circumstances, provided they do not runcounter to the orthodox faith and the eternal principles of

true morality. No matter how times may change, the

Catholic Church, ever old and ever young, fills them with

her own spirit, overcomes error and sin, and directs all

legitimate efforts for the betterment of the race into their

divinely appointed channels. There is no error so novel,

SOCfr. P. J. Toner, art. "Infalli- art. "Unfehlbarkeit" in Herder s

bility" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Kirchenlexikon, Vol. XII, pp. 240Vol. VII, pp. 790 sqq. ; J. Pohle, sqq.


no intellectual malady so grave that the Church is not

able to counteract it with antidotes from her spiritual

pharmacopoeia. Our own time furnishes a most instruc

tive exemplification of this truth. It is a period of

transition and fermentation. Pius X has vigorously

condemned the Modernistic errors endangering the faith,

and there is no doubt that they can be effectively warded

off if the nations will listen to the voice of Holy Mother

Church.31

31 Cfr. H. Pesch, S. J., Die soziale Befdhigung der Kirche, 3d ed.,

Berlin 1911.

CHAPTER III

CHRIST S KINGSHIP

i. DEFINITION OF THE TERM. The word

king (rex, /fodtAev?, ) denotes a sovereign invested

with supreme authority over a nation, countryor tribe.

a) Kingship includes three separate and distinct

functions: legislative, judiciary, and executive,

which together constitute the supreme power of

jurisdiction or government.

The royal dominium iurisdictionis must not be con

founded with what is known as the right of ownership

(dominium proprietatis). The latter is directed to the

possession of impersonal objects, while the former im

plies the governance of free persons or subjects. Thetwo differ both logically and in fact, and neither can be

directly deduced from the other. The ruling power of

a king or emperor by no means implies the possession

of property rights either in his subjects or their belong

ings. The subjects of a monarch are as free to possess

private property as the monarch himself, not to speak of

the right of personal liberty.

It may be well to observe, however, that these limi

tations apply to earthly kings only. God, being the Crea-

149


tor and Lord of the universe, is the absolute owner of all

things, including men and their belongings.1

b) The royal power with its various func

tions may be either secular or spiritual. Theformer is instituted for man s earthly, the latter

for his spiritual benefit. Christ s is a spiritual

kingdom, and will continue as such throughout

eternity. Holy . Scripture and the Church fre

quently liken His kingship to the office of a shep

herd, to emphasize the loving care with which Herules us and provides for our necessities.

2. CHRIST S EARTHLY KINGSHIP AS TAUGHTIN SACRED SCRIPTURE. Both the Old and the

New Testament represent our Lord Jesus Christ

as a true King, who descended upon this terres

trial planet to establish a spiritual kingdom. This

kingdom is the Catholic Church. Christ did not

come as a worldly monarch, but as "the bishopof our souls."

2

a) If we examine the Messianic prophecies of the

Old Testament we find the kingdom of Israel, or"

throne of David," represented as a type of the Messianic

kingdom that was to come. Cfr. 2 Kings VII, 12 sq. :

"

I will raise up thy [David s] seed after thee, which

shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish

his kingdom. He shall build a house [i. e., temple,

church] to my name, and I will establish the throne of

1 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss. God: His Knowability, Essence and Attributes,

pp. 286 sqq.

2 Cfr. i Pet. II, 25.

CHRIST A TRUE KING 151

his kingdom for ever." The same prediction is made

in Psalms II, XXX, XXXVII, XLV, LXXII, and CIX.

Isaias,3

Daniel,4 and Zacharias 5

depict the Messias in

glowing colours as a Ruler, as the Prince of peace and

the mighty General of a great army. These prophecies

were all fulfilled, though not in the manner anticipated

by the carnal-minded Jews. The Messias came as a

King, but not with the pomp of an earthly sovereign, nor

for the purpose of freeing the Jewish nation from the

yoke of its oppressors.

Nevertheless the New Testament hails the lowly in

fant born of the Blessed Virgin as a great King. Even

before his birth the Archangel informs His Mother that" The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David

his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for

ever."6 The wise men hurried to His manger from

the far East and anxiously inquired :

" Where is he

that is born king of the Jews ?" 7 Yet when, after the

miraculous multiplication of loaves, the Jews tried

to"

take him by force and make him king," Jesus"

fled again into the mountain himself alone."8 And

when, in the face of death, Pilate asked Him :

"

Art

thou a king then ?" He answered :

" Thou sayest

that I am a king."

9 After they had crucified Him,"

they put over his head his cause written : This is

Jesus the King of theJews."

10Sorely disappointed in

their worldly hopes, and still enmeshed in political am

bitions, the two disciples who went to Emmaus lamented :

" But we hoped, that it was he that should have redeemed

Israel.""

3 Is. IX, 6 sqq., u. 8 John VI, 15.

4 Dan. VII, 13 sqq. 9 John XVIII, 37-

5 Zach. IX. 10 Matth. XXVII, 37-

6 Luke I, 32 sq. 11 Luke XXIV, 21. Cfr. Acts I, 6.

7 Matth. II, 2.


b) This seeming contradiction between the OldTestament prophecies and the actual life of

our Lord Jesus Christ finds its solution in the

Church s teaching that His is a purely spiritual

kingdom. Cfr. Is. LX, 18 sqq.; Jer. XXIII, 5

sqq.; Ezech. XXXVII, 21 sqq. For the sake of

greater clearness, it will be advisable to separatethe quaestio iuris from the quaestio facti, andto treat each on its own merits.

a) The quaestio facti. Taking the facts as we knowthem, there can be no doubt that Christ never intended

to establish an earthly kingdom. He fled when the Jewsattempted to make him king.

12 He acknowledged the

Roman Emperor as the legitimate ruler of Palestine andcommanded the Jews to

"

render to Caesar the thingsthat are Caesar s, and to God the things that are God s."

1S

He consistently refused to interfere in secular affairs,

as when he said to the man who asked Him to ad

judicate a question of inheritance :

" Who hath appointed me judge, or divider, over you?"

14 And Heexpressly declared before Pilate :

15 "

My kingdom is

not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world,

my servants would certainly strive that I should not bedelivered to the Jews : but now my kingdom is not fromhence."

16

ft) The quaestio iuris. What first strikes us fromthe juridic point of view is : Did Christ merely refrain

from asserting His legal claim to secular kingship, or

12 John VI, 15. gia, thes. 138. For a critical refu-13 Matth. XXII, 21. tation of Loisy s errors see M.14 Luke XII, 14. Lepin, Christ and the Gospel (Eng-15 John XVIII, 36. lish tr.), Philadelphia 1910, espe-16 Cfr. Ferd. Stentrup, Soteriolo- ially pp. 475 sqq.


had He no such ;claim, at least in actu primof Catholic

theologians agree that as"

the Son of David" Christ

possessed no dynastic title to the kingdom of Juda ; first,

because His Messianic kingdom extended far beyond the

limits of Palestine, in fact embraced the whole world;

and secondly, because neither the Blessed Virgin Marynor St. Joseph, though both descended from the

"

house

of David," had any hereditary claim to the throne which

had been irretrievably lost under Jechonias.17 There is

another point on which theologians are also of one mind.

By virtue of His spiritual kingship the Godman possesses

at least indirect power over all secular affairs, for else His

spiritual power could not be conceived as absolutely un

limited, which would have imperiled the purpose of the

Incarnation. This indirect power over worldly affairs is

technically known as potestas indirecta in temporalia.

Its counterpart is the potestas directa in temporalia,

and in regard to this there exists a long-drawn-out con

troversy among theologians. Gregory of Valentia and

Cardinal Bellarmine 18 hold that Christ had no direct

jurisdiction in secular or temporal matters, while

Suarez 19 and De Lugo20 maintain that He had. The

affirmative opinion appeals to us as more probable,

though the Scriptural texts marshalled in its favor byDe Lugo

21 cannot be said to be absolutely convincing.

These texts (Matth. XXVIII, 18; Acts X, 36; i Cor.

XV, 27; Apoc. I, 5 and XIX, 16) can be explained

partly by the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum,22

partly by reference to our Lord s spiritual kingdom. De

Lugo s theological arguments, however, are very strong

17 Cfr. Jer. XXII, 30. 20 De Myst. Incarn., disp. 30, i.

18 De Rom. Pontifice, V, 4 sq. 21 L. c., n. 5.

19 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 22 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,

42, sect. 2. pp. 184 sqq.


indeed. Take this one, for example. Christ s direct

jurisdiction in matters temporal is based on the Hypo-static Union. On account of the Hypostatic Union His

sacred humanity was entitled to such excellencies and

prerogatives as the power of working miracles, the ful

ness of knowledge, the highest measure of the beatific

vision, the dignity of headship over all creatures,23

etc.

And it is but reasonable to conclude that there musthave been due to Him in a similar way that other pre

rogative which we may call kingship over all crea

tures.24 From this point of view it may be argued that

the theandric dignity of our Lord, flowing from the Hypostatic Union, gave Him an -imprescriptible claim to

royal power, so that, had He willed, He could have

deposed all the kings and princes of this world and con

stituted Himself the Head of a universal monarchy.Bellarmine s apprehension that this teaching might

exert a pernicious influence on the papacy, is absolutely

groundless. For, in the first place, Christ s vice-gerenton earth is not Christ Himself, and secondly, the pre

rogatives and powers enjoyed by our Lord, even those

of a purely spiritual nature, are not eo ipso enjoyed

by the Pope."

Christ was able to do many things in the

spiritual realm," rightly observes De Lugo,"

which the

Pope cannot do; for example, institute sacraments, con

fer grace through other than sacramental channels,

etc."25

These considerations also explain why Christ declared

Himself legally exempt from the obligation of payingtaxes and "

paid the didrachmas"

solely to avoid scan

dal.26

23 Cfr. Pohle-Pretiss, Christohgy, 25 L. c., n. n.

pp. 239 sqq. 26 Cfr. Matth. XVII, 23 sqq.24 De Lugo, /. c., n. 8.


The question as to the property rights enjoyed by our

Divine Saviour may be solved by the same principlewhich we have applied to that of His temporal juris

diction. Vasquez was inconsistent in rejecting DeLugo s solution of the former problem after acceptinghis view of the latter.

27For, while it is perfectly true

that the Godman never laid claim to earthly goods, but

lived in such abject poverty that He literally"

had not

where to lay his head,"28

this does not argue that Hehad no legal right to acquire worldly possessions. Thesimple truth is that He had renounced this right for goodreasons.

It is an article of faith, defined by Pope John XXIIin his Constitution

"

Quum inter nonnullos," that Christ

actually possessed at least a few things as His personal

property.29

3. CHRIST S HEAVENLY KINGSHIP, OR THEDOGMA OF His ASCENSION AND SITTING AT THERIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER. The Resurrection of our Lord and His Descent into hell merelyformed the preliminaries of His kingly office. It

was by His glorious Ascension that He took for

mal possession of His royal throne in Heaven,which Holy Scripture describes as

"sitting at the

right hand of God." Both His Ascension andHis sitting at the right hand of God are fundamental articles of faith, as may be judged fromthe fact that they have been incorporated into the

Apostles Creed.

27 De Incarn., disp. 8?, cap. 6. Summa Theol., 33, qu. 40, art. 3.28 Luke IX, 58. Cfr. St. Thomas, 29 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 494.

II


a) There is no need of entering into a detailed Scrip

tural argument to prove these dogmas. Our Lord Him

self clearly predicted His Ascension into Heaven,30 and

the prophecy was fulfilled in the presence of many wit

nesses. Mark XVI, 19: "And the Lord Jesus, after

He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and

sitteth on the right hand of God."31

The argument from Tradition is copiously developed

by Suarez in the 5ist disputation of his famous treatise

De Mysteriis Vitae Christi.

Our Lord "

ascended by His own might," says the

Roman Catechism," and was not raised aloft by the

power of another, as was Elias, who went up in a

fiery chariot into heaven (4 Kings II, n), or as was

the prophet Habacuc (Dan. XIV, 35 sqq.), or Philip the

deacon (Acts VIII, 39), who, borne through the air

by the divine power, traversed far distant parts of the

earth. Neither did He ascend into heaven solely as

God, by the supreme power of the Divinity, but also

as man ;for although the Ascension could not have taken

place by natural power, yet that virtue with which the

blessed soul of Christ had been endowed, was capable

of moving the body as it pleased; and his body, now

glorified, readily obeyed the command of the actuating

soul. And thus we believe that Christ, as God and

man, ascended by His own power into heaven.":

The phrase,"

sitteth on the right hand of God," must

not, of course, be interpreted literally, since with God

there is neither right nor left. It is a figurative ex

pression, intended to denote the exalted station occupied

30 John VI, 63; XIV, i sqq.; rbv ovpavbv Kal eKadicrev e/c Seiu>*

XVI, 28. TOV 0eou.

si O (lev oi>v Kvpios lyaovs |Uera 32 Cat. Rom., P. I, c. 7, qu. 2.

T& \d\ijaai avrols dvrjXrj^et] eis Cfr. S. Thomas, S. Theol., 32, qu.

57 >

art. i.


by our Lord in heaven,33 and also His calm, immutable

possession of glory and jurisdiction over the wholeuniverse.34 It is in His capacity of royal judge that

Jesus will one day reappear with great power and majesty

"

to judge the living and the dead."3S

b) The two dogmas under consideration haveboth a Christological and a Soteriological bearing.

a) From the Christological point of view our Saviour s

Ascension as well as His sitting on the right hand of

the Father signalize the beginning, or rather the con

tinuation, of the status e.valtationis, of which His Resurrection and Descent into hell were mere preludes. Hishumiliation (status exinanitionis) in the

"

form of a

servant,"36 His poverty, suffering, and death, made

way for an eternal kingship in Heaven. The truly

regal splendor of our Divine Redeemer during andafter His Ascension is more strongly emphasized in the

Apostolic Epistles than in the Gospels. In the Epistlesthe epithet

"

Lord "

(Dominus, 6 KU/CHOS) nearly alwaysconnotes royal dominion. Cfr. i Tim. VI, 15: "Who

is the Blessed and only Mighty, King of kings, and Lordof lords." It is only since His Ascension into Heaventhat Christ rules the universe conjointly with the Father,

though this joint dominion will not reach its highestperfection till the day of the Last Judgment, when all

creation will lie in absolute subjection"

under His feet."37

(3) From the Soteriological point of view it would be

wrong to represent Christ s Ascension (not to speak ofHis Resurrection and Descent into hell) as the total or

33 Cfr. Heb. I, 13. 36 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology,34 Cfr. Eph. I, 20 sqq. pp. 95 sq.35 Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., 33, 37 Cfr. Eph. I, 22 sqq. ; Heb. II, 8.

qu. 58.

1 58 OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

even partial cause (causa meritoria) of our Redemption.

The atonement was effected solely by the sacrifice of the

Cross. Nevertheless St. Paul writes :

"

Jesus ... en

tered . . . into heaven itself, that he may appear now in

the presence of God for us."38 In other words, He con

tinues to exercise His mediatorial office in Heaven.

How are we to understand this? St. Thomas explains

it as follows :

"

Christ s Ascension is the cause of our

salvation in a twofold way, first on our part, and sec

ondly on His. On our part, in so far as His Ascension

directs our minds to Him. ... On His part, in so far

as He ascended for our salvation, (i) to prepare for

us the way to Heaven, ... (2) because Christ entered

Heaven, as the High Priest entered the Holy of holies,

to make intercession for us;39

. . . (3) in order that,

seated as Lord God on the throne of Heaven, He

might thence send us divinegifts."

40 As is apparent

from the last-mentioned two points, Christ s kingship

is closely bound up with His priesthood. In fact it

may be said in a general way that the three functions

or offices of our Divine Redeemer are so closely inter

twined that they cannot be separated.

For the special benefit of canonists we would observe

that the threefold character of these functions furnishes

no adequate basis for the current division of the powerof the Church into potestas ordims, potestas magisterii,

and potestas iurisdictionis*1 The traditional division into

potestas ordinis and potestas iurisdictionis is the only

adequate and correct one from the dogmatic point of

view.42

38 VvV tfuJtavurOijvai TW irpoawiru 41 This division is employed by

TOV 6eou virep rj/Ji^v. Heb. IX, 24. Walter, Phillips, Richter, Hinschius,

39 Heb. VII, 25. and others.

405". TheoL, 33, qu. 57, art. 6. 42 Cfr. Scheeben, Dogmatik, Vol.


4. CHRIST S KINGSHIP AS CONTINUED IN HisCHURCH ON EARTH. We have shown that our

Divine Redeemer did not claim secular or tem

poral jurisdiction. It follows a fortiori that the

Church which He has established is a purely

spiritual kingdom and must confine herself to the

government of souls.

a) The Catholic Church was not established as a polit

ical power. She represents that peaceful Messianic kingdom which was foreshadowed by the Old Testament

prophets and which the Prince of Peace founded with His

Precious Blood. Hence the hierarchical order displayedin the papacy, episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate, is

purely spiritual. Hence, too, the means of sanctification

which the Church employs (prayer, sacrifice, and the

sacraments) are of an exclusively spiritual character.

Christ, who was the King of Kings, did not disturb the

earthly monarchs of His time in their jurisdiction, and it

cannot be the mission of His Church to grasp at political

power or treat temporal rulers as her vassals. Hers

is a purely spiritual dominion for the sanctification of

souls.

Being God s kingdom on earth, the Church exists in

and for this world, but is not of it. The theory of a few

medieval canonists that she enjoys direct jurisdiction over

all nations and rulers, has no foundation either in

Sacred Scripture or in history. It is unevangelical for

the reason that Christ never claimed such power. It

is unhistorical because the"

donation of Constantine,"

on which it rests, is a fiction.43 This theory, which was

I, p. 67, Freiburg 1873; Cavagnis, 43 Cfr. L. Duchesne, The Begin-Instit. luris Publ. Ecclesiae, 4th ed., nings of the Temporal SovereigntyVol. I, p. 24, Rome 1906. of the Popes (English tr.), p. 120,


inspired by the imposing phenomenon of the Holy RomanEmpire, has never been adopted by the Church, nor is it

maintained by the majority of her theologians and canon

ists. The relation between Church and State still re

mains a knotty problem.44 Harnack seriously distorts the

truth when he says :

;

The Roman Church in this wayprivily pushed itself into the place of the Roman world-

empire, of which it is the actual continuation;the empire

has not perished, but has only undergone a transforma

tion. If we assert, and mean the assertion to hold goodeven of the present time, that the Roman Church is the

old Roman Empire consecrated by the Gospel, that is no

mere clever remark/ but the recognition of the true

state of the matter historically, and the most appropriateand fruitful way of describing the character of this

Church. It still governs the nations; its popes rule like

Trajan and Marcus Aurelius;Peter and Paul have taken

the place of Romulus and Remus;the bishops and arch

bishops, of the proconsuls; the troops of priests and

monks correspond to the legions; the Jesuits, to the im

perial body-guard. The continued influence of the old

Empire and its institutions may be traced in detail, downto individual legal ordinances, nay, even in the veryclothes. That is no church like the evangelical com

munities, or the national churches of the East; it is a

political creation, and as imposing as a world-empire,because the continuation of the Roman Empire."

45 The

possession of political power may be useful, nay, rela

tively speaking, necessary to insure to the Pope the free

and untrammelled exercise of his spiritual functions;but

London 1908; J. P. Kirsch in the * Das Wesen des Christentums,Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. p. 157, Leipzig 1902 (English tr. :

118 sqq. What is Christianity? p. 270, 2nd44 Cfr. J. Pohle in Herder s Kir- ed., New York 1908).

chenlexikon, Vol. XII, 229 sqq.


it does not enter into the essence of the papacy, which for

centuries has flourished without it and still commands the

highest respect in spite of its spoliation by the Italian

government.

b) The Church exercises a truly royal domin

ion over the souls of men, and hence must be enti

tled to all the prerogatives of a spiritual kingship.

That is to say, within the limits of her divinely or

dained constitution, she possesses legislative as

well as judicial power over her members, includ

ing the executive right of inflicting punishment.46

There can be no exercise of judicial power with

out the power of compulsion (potestas coactiva s.

vindicativa) and it is, moreover, a formally de

nned dogma that the Church possesses this

power.47

The penalties which she is authorized to inflict are,

of course, predominantly spiritual (penitential acts, ec

clesiastical censures, and especially excommunication).48

But she can also impose temporal and bodily punish

ments (poenae temporales et corporales). We know

that she has exercised this power, and it would be temera

rious to deny that she possesses it.40

Has the Church also the power to put malefactors

to death (ins gladii) ? Canonists are not agreed on

this point, though all admit that if the Church decides

to inflict the death penalty, the sentence must be carried

46Cfr. Matth. XVI, 19; XVIII, 48 Cfr. i Cor. IV, 21; V, 5; *

15 sqq. Cor. XIII, i sq. ; i Tim. I, 20.

47 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- 49 Cfr. Bouix, De ludic., Vol. I,

chiridion, n. 499, 640, 1504 sq. p. 66, Paris 1855.

i6a. OFFICES OF THE REDEEMER

out by the secular power (brachium saeculare), because it

would be unbecoming for the Spouse of Christ to stain

her hands with blood, even if a deadly crime had been per

petrated against her.

It is a historical fact that the Church has never pronounced (much less, of course, executed) the death sen

tence or claimed the right to inflict it. Whenever, in

the Middle Ages, she found herself constrained to pronounce judgment for a crime which the secular powerwas wont to punish by death (e. g. voluntary and obsti

nate heresy), she invariably turned the culprit over to

the State. The cruel practice of burning heretics has

fortunately ceased and will never be revived.

Regarded from the standpoint of religious principle,

the question of the ins gladii is purely academic. Thegreat majority of canonists seem to hold that the Churchdoes not possess the right of inflicting capital punishment.The contrary teaching of Tarquini and De Luca 50 has

occasioned much unfavorable criticism, and Cavagnisundoubtedly voices the conviction of most contemporarycanonists when he says

51 that the so-called ius gladii hasno solid basis either in Scripture or Tradition. Our Divine Redeemer did not approve the infliction of capital

punishment,52

nay, He restrained His followers from

inflicting bodily injury.53

St. Paul, in spite of his sever

ity, never took recourse to any but spiritual measures.The great Pope Nicholas I said :

" God s holy Churchhas no other sword than the spiritual ;

she does not kill,

she dispenses life."54 Her kingdom is purely spiritual,

BO Inst. Juris EccL PubL, Vol. I, 53 Cfr. Matth. XXVI, 52.

pp. 261 sqq., Rome 1901. ^"Sancta Dei Ecclesia gladium51 Inst. luris PubL EccL, 4th ed., non habet nisi spiritualem, non occi-

Vol. I, pp. 190 sqq., Rome 1906. dit, sed vivificat." (Deer. Grat., c.

52 Cfr. Luke IX, 53 sqq. 6, causa 33, qu. 2.)


and hence she must leave the infliction of capital punishment to the secular power.

55

The most determined opponent of the Church s

royal office is modern Liberalism, which employsall the powers of civil government to obstruct

the exercise of her spiritual jurisdiction or to

circumscribe that jurisdiction as narrowly as pos

sible. Among the means invented for this pur

pose are the so-called ius circa sacra, the appella-

tio tamquam ab abusu and the placetum re-

giitm,57

in a word the whole iniquitous systemknown in English-speaking countries as Csesaro-

papism or Erastianism 58 and based on the per

nicious fallacy that the State is supreme in

ecclesiastical affairs.

READINGS :* St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 33, qu. 22, and

the Commentators. A. Charre, Le Sacrifice de I Homme-Dieu,Paris 1899. *V. Thalhofer, Das Opfer des Alien und Neuen

Bundes, Ratisbon 1870. IDEM, Die Opferlehre des Hebrder-

briefes, Dillingen 1855. W. Schenz, Die priesterliche Tatigkeit

des Messias nach detn Propheten Isaias, Ratisbon 1892. J.

Grimal, Le Sacerdoce et le Sacrifice de Ncrtre Seigneur Jesus-

Christ, Paris 1908.* Fr. Schmid, Christus als Prophet, nach

den Evangelien dargestellt, Brixen 1892. Tanner, S. J., Cruen-

tum Christi Sacrificium, Incruentum Missae Sacrificium Expli-

55 Cfr. A. Vermeersch, S. J., otic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 650

Tolerance (tr. by W. H. Page), pp. sqq.

58 sqq., London 1913; J. Pohle, art. 57 Cfr. S. Luzio in the Catholic

"Toleration" in the Catholic Ency- Encyclopedia, s. v. "Exequatur,"

clopedia, Vol. XIV; J. Keating, S.VoL V pp " 7 7 sq

J., in The Month, No. 582, pp. 60758 On the true meani

"gof this

loosely used term see B. Ward in

56 Cfr. R. L. Burtsell in the Cath-the Catholi < E cycl

t>*di

<>>

Vol. V.pp. 514 sqq.


catum, Prague 1669. B. Bartmann, Das Himmelreich und sein

Kdnig nach den Synoptikern, Paderborn 1904. A. J. Maas, S. J.,

Christ in Type and Prophecy, 2 vols., New York 1893-5. M.

Lepin, Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and Son of

God, Philadelphia 1910. Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual of Cath

olic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 196-207, 2nd ed., London 1901. W.

Humphrey, S. J., The One Mediator, pp. 1-41, London s. a.

Other authorities quoted in the foot-notes.

INDEX

Abelard, 54.

Berruyer, 67.

Beza, 92.

Blavatsky, Madame, 44.

Adam, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 40, Body of Christ, Glorified, 10542, 49 sq.

Adamantius, 52.

sq.

Bonaventure, St., 26 sq.

Adequacy of the atonement, 60 Books, Why Christ wrote na,

sqq. 145 sq.

Adoration, 112. Bougaud, 31.

"At5>7s 92 sqq.

yEons, 6.

Albert the Great, 30.

Alexander VIII, 78.

Ambrose Catharinus, 31.

Ambrose, St., 29, 135 sq.

Angels, 16 sq., 33 sq., 80 sq.

Anselm, St., 21, 54, 55.

AvrtXvTpov, 62.

Apocatastasis, 80.

Appellatio tamquam ab abusn, Capreolus,

163.

Ascension, Christ s, 155 sqq.

Athanasius, St., 15, 29.

Csesaropapism, 163.

Calvin, 10 sq., 75, 91, 92, 94.

Calyinists, 123.

Capital punishment, Has theChurch the right to inflict

it? 161 sqq.

Cayagnis, 162.

Child, Why Christ came into

the world as a, 17 sq.

Atonement, Vicarious, 35 sqq.; Christ, Our Mediator, 7 sqq;

Properties of, 60 sqq. ;Real- His Incarnation, 13 sqq. ;

Why He assumed a humanrather than an angelic na

ture, 16 sqq. ; Why He cameinto the world as a child,

17 sq. ; Gained merits for us,

56 sq. ;When ? 57 sq. ;

Theprincipal object of His meritorious actions, 58 sq. ;

Adequacy of His atonement, 60

sqq. ; Superabundance there

of, 70 sqq. ;Died for all the

faithful, 75 sqq.; Died for

all men, 77 sqq.; His deathon the crass, 85 sqq.; His

ization of, 84 sqq.

Augustine, St., 10, 16, 21, 22,

29, 33, 42, 53, 67, 79, 82, 93,

95, 124 sq.

B

Bajus, 73.

Baptism, 103.

Baptism of Christ, 129.

Barnabas, Epistle of, 121.

Bellarmine, 153, 154.

Bernard of Clairvaux, St.,

Bernard of Siena, 31.

53-

165

i66 INDEX

descent into hell, 91 sqq. ;

His Resurrection, 101 sqq.;His priesthood, ill sqq., 127

sqq.; His intercession for usin Heaven, 135 sqq.; His

prophetical office, 140 sqq.;His kingship, 149 sqq. ; HisAscension and sitting at the

right hand of the Father, 155

sqq.

Christus, 129.

Chrysostom, St. John, 71.

Church, The Catholic, 146 sqq.,

159 sqq.Clement VI, 74-

Clement of Rome, St., 51.

Congruity of the Redemption,13 sqq.

Constantine, Donation of, 159.

Cross, 85 sqq.; Sacrifice of the

114 sqq.

Cyril of Jerusalem, St., 71.

D

Damascene, St. John, 16.

Dante, 98.

David, 153-

Death of Christ, 85 sqq., insqq.

De Luca, 162.

Deluge, 100 sq.

De Luga, 26, 153 sqq.

Demiurge, 6.

De Rada, 63.Descent into hell, Christ s, 91

sqq.

Devil, Role of the, in the In

carnation, 51 sqq.

Diekamp, Fr. 80.

Dominus, 157.

Dorholt, B., 21, 41.Du Cappucce, 31.

Duns Scotus, 30, 63.

Durandus, 91.

Ephesus, Third General Council of, 44 sq., 116.

Erastianism, 163.

Eternity of Christ s priesthood,133 sqq.

Expiation, 112, 121.

Faber, F. W., 31.Francis de Sales, St., 31.

Franzelin, 66.

Frassen, 63.

Funke, B., 21.

Gnosticism, 41, 43 sq.

Gcrttschalk, 77.

Gregory of Nazianzus, 52.

Gregory of Nyssa, St., 52.

Gregory of Valentia, 26, 66,

153-

Grotius, Hugo, 51.

II

Harnack, 55, 160.

Hell, Christ s descent into, 91sqq.

Henno, 63.

Hierarchy, 159.

Holy Orders, 146.

Holy Raman Empire, 160.

Homo gloriosus, 26, 30.Homo passibilis, 26, 30.

Hypostatic Union, 14, 22, 63,

65, 74, 123, 129, 133, 139, 144,

154-

Imitation of Christ, 144.

Impeccantia, 42.

Incarnation, The, 13 sqq., 19,21 sq., 25 sqq., 127 sq.

Inf.eriores partes terrae, 93.

Infernutn, 94.Infinite value of Christ s atone

ment, 72.

Innocent X, 76.

Irenaeus, St., 52, 93.

Isaias, 45 sqq., 131, 141 sq.

INDEX 167

Jus circa sacra, 163.Ius gladii, 161 sqq.

Jansenists, 79.

Jansenius, 75 sq.

Janssens, L., 26.

Jewish sacrifice, 117 sq.

John XXII, 155.

John the Baptist, 143.

Joseph, St., 153.

Judge, Christ the royal, 157.

Jurisdiction of the Church,

T!S9 sq.

Justification, 103.

K

Kenosis, 20.

King, 149 sq.

"King of the Jews," 151.

Kingship, Christ s, 149 sqq.

Kleutgen, 26.

Last Judgment, 157.Last Supper, 132.

Lateran, Fourth Council of

the, 91.Leo IX, 104.

Lessius, 17, 26, 33.

Leibniz, 19.

Liberalism, 163.<

Limbo, Speculations regardingthe location of, 98.

Limbus patrum, 91 sq., 94, 95.

Limbus puerorum, 96 sqq.

Logos, 6, 24.

Luke, St., 143.

Lull, Raymond, 19.

Lutheranism, 40.

Magisterium, The ecclesiasti

cal, 146 sqq.

Malebranche, 19.

"Man of Sorrows," 131.

Martyrdom not a true sacrifice,126.

Mary B. V., 153.

Mass, 116, 132, 146.

Mastrius, 64.

Mediator, 5 sqq.Mediator naturalis, 7.

Mediator per gratiam, 7.

Mediatorship, 5 sqq.

Melchisedech, 127, 130, 131 sq.

Merit, 55 sqq.Merits of Christ, 56 sqq.Meritum de condigno, 56.Meritum de congruo, 56.

Messias, 141.

Milton, 98.

Modernism, 50, 148.

Monophysitism, 122, 123.

Montanism, 147.Mosaic sacrifices, 117 sqq.

Moses, 141, 142, 145.

N

Necessity of the Redemption,18 sqq.

Nestorianism, 122, 123.Nicholas I, 162.

Nominalists, 61.

Offices of the Redeemer, nosqq.

_

Optimism, 19 sq.Ordination to the priesthood,

Christ s, 127 sqq.

Origen, 52, 80.

Origenism, 104."Our Father," The, 43.

Pantheism, 41.

Paraclete, 136 sq.

Passion, Christ s, 72, 86 sqq.

Paul, St., 38, 48, 50, 76, 79, 103,

105, 118 sqq., 128 sq., 130,

131 .sq., 134, 138, 144, 162.

Pelagianism, 41 sqq.Pell, G. A., 41.

i68 INDEX

Perfection of the atonement,Intrinsic, 60 sqq. ; Extrinsic,75 sqq.

Pesch, Chr., 26.

Petavius, 26, 77, 136 sq.

Peter, St., 99 sq.

Pfleiderer, 55.

Pilate, 151, 152.Pius V, 73.Pius X, 148.Placetum regium, 163.

Plato, 95.

Polycarp, St., 51.

Pope, 154.Potestas coactiva of the

Church, 161.

Poverty of Christ, 155.

Prayers of Christ, 132 sq.Precious Blood, 48 sq., 61 sq.,

88.

Predestinarianism, 75 sqq.

Predestination, 75.Predestination of the Redeemer, 24 sqq.

Priest, Christ a true, in sqq.,

127 sqq.Priesthood of Christ, in sqq.,

127 sqq.

Prophet, Christ as a, 140 sqq.

Prosper of Aquitaine, 79.

Punishment, The Church s

right to inflict, 161.

Purgatory, 94, 95 sq.

R

Rationalism, 38, 41 sqq., 115.Reatus culpae, 36.

Reatus poenae, 36, 37.

Redemption, Congruity of the,

13 sqq. ; Necessity of the, 18

sqq.; A free gift of God, 20sqq.; Predestination of the,

24 sqq.; Through Christ s

vicarious atonement, 35 sqq.Resurrection, The, 101 sqq.Richard of St. Victor, 21.

Rigor iustitiae, 66, 69.

Risi, 31.

Riviere, J., 52.

Rupert of Deutz, 30.

Sacrifice, in sqq.

Sacrifice, Bloody, in sqq.Sacrificial act, Christ s, 125 sq.

Satisfaction, 35 sqq., 55 sqq., 60sqq.

Schell, 31.

Schqulza, P., 137 sq.

Scotists, 25 sq., 30 sqq., 61,

63 sq.Second Person of the Trinity,Why did He become incarnate? 15 sq.

"Servant of God," 46 sq.

Shepherd, Christ our, 150.Sin, Grievous, 36 sq.

Sitting at the right hand ofGod the Father, 155 sqq.

Socinianism, 38, 42 sq., 51, 115,

123, 130, 131, 137.

Socmus, Faustus, 42, 138.

Socinus, Laelius, 42.

Socrates, 88, 95, 144.

Sprinkling of the blood of

Christ, 88.

Stancarus, Francis, 123.Status exaltationis, 157.Status exinanitionis, 157.

Stentrup, 26.

Suarez, 22, 31, 33, 61, 66, 69,

7i, 156.

Tanner, 66.

Tarquini, 162.

Teacher, Christ as a, 140 sqq.Temporal power of the papacy,

160 sq.

Tepe, 20.

Teresa,_ St., 90.

Tertullian, 80, 93, 121 sq.

Thalhofer, 137 sq., 139.

Theosophy, 41, 44.

Thomas, St., On the functionsof mediatorship, 8; On the

mystery of the Incarnation,14 sq. ; On the motive of the

Incarnation, 26 sq. ;On the

infinity of grievous sin, 36;

INDEX 169

On the scope of Christ s

merits, 59; On the dignity of

Christ s flesh, 72 ;On the ne

cessity of Christ s Passion,

72 sq. ; On the universalityof the atonement, 82 sq. ;

Onthe congruity of Christ s

death on the cross, 88 sq. ;

On His descent into hell, 96;On sacrifice, 114; On the

priesthood, 139; On the question why Christ confined His

personal activity to one particular time and country,145 ;

On the question whythie Redeemer taught cmly byword of mouth, 145 sq. ; OnChrist s Ascension, 158.

Thomassin, 136 sq.

Thomists, 26 sqq., 64 sq.

Toledo, Eleventh Council of,106 sq.

Toleration, 163.

Toletus, Card., 26, 29.

Tournely, 21, 138.

Tradition, 145 sq.

Trent, Council of, 45, 56, 58, 78,

81, 85, 116, 124, 130.

Triumph over hell, Christ s 95.

U

Unction of Christ, 127 sqq.

"Unigenitus," Bull, 73 sq.

Universality af the atonement,75 sqq.

Vasquez, 26, 136 sq., 155.Vicarious atonement, 35 sqq.

Properties of, 60 sqq.Voluntas salvifica, 75, 82, 97.

WWyclif, 18 sq.

Ysambert, 31.

Zill, L., 137, 138.

Zwinglians, 123.

s ? 7^/ W L. I

BT 775 .P713 1913 SMCPohle, Joseph,Soteriology 47159735

archive.org · THEPOHLE-PREUSSSERIESOFDOG MATICTEXT-BOOKS 1.God:HisKnowability,EssenceandAt...

Documents

Transcript of archive.org · THEPOHLE-PREUSSSERIESOFDOG MATICTEXT-BOOKS 1.God:HisKnowability,EssenceandAt...